K NAGARAJA ODAYAR Vs. COMMISSIONER H R AND C E ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff's case is as follows. Dnarmaraja temple known as Drowpathi Amman temple in Swamimalai was constructed and consecrated by the ancestors of the first plaintiff's husband Narayanaswamy Odayar, from about twenty years ago, he was managing the affairs of the temple till his death in march, 1960. Prior to him, his father Duraisamy Odayar and prior to Duraisamy odayar, his father Krishnasamy Odayar was managing the affairs of the temple. On the death of Narayanaswamy Odayar, the first plaintiff was recognised as hereditary Trustee as per order in O. A. No. 24 of 1976 dated 8. 1. 1977 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. & C. E. Narayanaswamy Odayar had left a will appointing the second plaintiff as the Trustee. The H. R. & C. E. Board has accepted that the income from the property owned by the temple is only Rs. 210 per annum. But the Deputy Commissioner passed an order stating the certain-properties have not been shown as temple properties and directed the Trustee to pay contribution at Rs. 733. 35 per annum. A demand for a sum of Rs. 4,358. 95 was also made by the defendants as arrears of contribution. The said order is liable to be set aside and hence the suit.

(2.) THE defendants in their written statement contends briefly as follows: Orders have been passed under Secs. 92 (1) and 92 (2) of the act. If the plaintiffs are aggrieved, their remedy is to prefer a revision to the Government under Sec. 114 of the Act and they cannot file a suit under sec. 70 of the Act. THE suit is not maintainable. THE temple owns 15 acres and 94 cents of wet lands and 2 acres and 17 cents of dry lands in Velukudi Village and 25 cents of dry lands in Swamimalai Village. THE hereditary trustee who has remitted the contribution and audit fee omitted the actual extent of land owned and therefore a revised claim notice was issued. THE Trustee filed objections, which was overruled. THE properties owned by the temple is 15. 94 acres and 60 cents. THE suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.

(3.) HAVING found that the suit is maintainable, let us see whether the prayer of the plaintiff for setting aside the order of the commissioner can be ordered. The temple was contributing a contribution of rs. 4. 20 p. per annum on the basis that the income from the property of the temple is Rs. 210 per annum. In the order, the Commissioner has revised the same and fixed at Rs. 733. 35 on the ground that even though the plaintiff who is the hereditary trustee was submitting accounts and making contributions, the plaintiff has suppressed the rest of the properties endowed in favour of the temple and the income from the rest of the properties which are more than 16 acres in extent. Whether the conclusion of the Commissioner that the temple owned 6 acres and the income therefrom has been suppressed by the plaintiff is therefore to be considered.