TIRUMALAISAMI NAICKER Vs. VILLAGERS OF KADAMBUR ATHUR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions are raised in this Letters Patent Appeal from the decision of our learned brother, Kailasam, J. First it is contended that the suit not having been instituted in conformity with and as provided for under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act XIX of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, it is barred under Section 93 of the Act. Next it is submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the other trustees of the religious institution in question.

(2.) THE appellant before us is the first defendant in a suit filed by the villagers of kadambur, Athur Taluk, Salem District, represented by their Nattamaikarar nallathambi Moopanar, as the plaintiff, for a declaration that the suit building belonged to the villagers and the second defendant in the suit, the District Board, salem, was their tenant. An injunction was prayed for restraining the first defendant in the suit, the present appellant, from interfering with suit property. The first defendant is one of the trustees of certain temples in the village, and it is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant fraudulently obtained an order from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board to the effect that the suit property is a property of the temples. It is seen that on proceedings taken by the first defendant under Section 87 of the Act (Miscellaneous Petition No. 73 of 1957) for possession of the suit property, the second defendant who was in occupation of the property as a tenant of the plaintiff attorned to the first defendant on 20-5-1957. The second defendant subsequently on 20-12-1957 sent to the plaintiff a memo to the effect that the suit property had been included as temple property, and that the first defendant claimed to be entitled to receive the rents. This, according to the plaintiff, necessitated his filing the suit for a declaration of the title of the villagers to the suit property and for an injunction against the first defendant. The plaintiff would state that the order obtained by the first defendant from the H. R. and C. E. Board was not binding on the plaintiff and it could be ignored by the villagers.

(3.) IN its written statement the second defendant Board expressed its willingness to pay the rent to such person as the Court might declare to be entitled to receive the rent. Besides setting up a plea that though the suit building was built by the villagers it had been dedicated to the temples in the village and therefore it is a public religious institution, the first defendant strenuously contended that the suit should have been in conformity with Section 62 of the Act, filed in the Sub-Court, which alone had jurisdiction. A plea of non-joinder of the other trustees of the temple was raised and the written statement specifically set up the order under section 87 of the Act as a bar to the suit as instituted.