A. BALASUNDARA MUDALIAR Vs. AREA COMMITTEE, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, BY CHAIRMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the sole hereditary trustee of Sri Avadinathaswami temple, Melvilvarayanallur, Polur Taluk, North Arcot district. It is common ground that the petitioner having succeeded to the office of trustee when his father died in 1936 has been functioning as such ever since. After the enactment of Madras Act XIX of 1951 proceedings were started by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments, Coimbatore under Section 58(1) of the Act for framing a scheme in respect of this temple. Section 58(1) enables a scheme to be framed for a religious institution in two contingencies (1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a scheme should be settled for the institution, and (2) or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing stating that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a scheme should be settled for it. In the present case the scheme proceedings were started by the Deputy Commissioner for the reason that the affairs of the institution were not being properly administered by the hereditary trustee. More than one matter was urged as grounds indicative of mismanagement or want of proper management by the trustee but of these that which survived for final consideration by the Deputy Commissioner related to the failure on the part of the trustee, that is, the present petitioner to redeem a mortgage which had been executed in 1924 when the temple was under the management of the petitioner's father. One of the charges in relation to this mortgage was that the trustee did not obtain the sanction of the Endowments Board before the mortgage was executed but this was obviously based on a misapprehension because the Endowments Board was created by the Act which was enacted in that behalf long after the execution of the mortgage. The reason assigned by the trustee for his failure to redeem the mortgage, was that the income from the temple was so small that it left no surplus in his hands for re -payment of the mortgage debt. As far as one could see, his explanation does not appear to have been rejected. The trustee, however, offered to redeem the mortgage provided he was given liberty to make an advance to the temple to enable the redemption of the mortgage to be effected. This request, however, has not been finally disposed of and one does not know at what stage it stands.

(2.) AS stated earlier the proceedings for the framing of a scheme went on before the Deputy Commissioner and he passed his final order on 31st January, 1956, the. operative portion of which ran:

(3.) THE legality of this order is not the subject of the proceedings here and hence it is not necessary to canvass the correctness of this reasoning but I cannot pass from it, without observing that the last sentence does not appear to follow from the premises.