PAPPAMMAL Vs. SWAMIKANNU PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants; before me are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. THE plaintiff filed an earlier suit O. S. No. 92 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cudda -lore, for setting aside the order dated 10. 4. 1981 passed by the Commissioner, Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration Department), Madras, and to uphold his right of hereditary trusteeship with reference to Sri. Gurumani Vinayagar and Kannanur Mari - amman temple in Kodikalkuppam Village , Cuddalore O. T. In that suit, the plaintiff claimed that the temple was founded by his ancestors and the members of his family were holding the hereditary office of Karnam of the village and the office of the hereditary trusteeship of the temple. It was alleged by him that his family had endowed properties for the maintenance of the temple. It was also alleged that the trusteeship of the temple or the management thereof was never in the hands of anyone outside his family. When defendants 1 and 2 in that suit disputed his rights of hereditary trusteeship, he filed an application C. A. No. 9 of 1960 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments, to have his rights declared. THE same was dismissed and his appeal to the Commissioner met with the same fate. Hence that suit was filed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner. In that suit he had made a reference to a will of his grand-father executed in the year 1903 whereby certain properties were endowed in favour of the temple.

(2.) THE defendants in that suit contested the claim of the plaintiff that the temple was founded by his ancestors and that the members of his family were the hereditary trustees. While denying all the claims made by the plaintiff in that suit, the defendants contended with reference to the will put forward by the plaintiff that the same would not help him in his claim to hereditary trusteeship as it was only because of giving certain properties to the temple. THE defendants did not raise any question as to the genuineness or the validity of the will.

(3.) AFTER thus disposing of the only question which arose for consideration, the Bench proceeded to observe in the following terms: "we may also add that the fact that the plaintiff's claim to the heriditary trusteeship of the temples has been negatived , does not affect his right to be the trustee of the endowment. Under the powers conferred by the document exhibit A. 2, the plaintiff will be entitled to be in possession and management of the properties and utilise the income of the properties as specified in Ex. A. 2. The authorities of the Endowment will see to it that his rights are not in any way affected by the present misconceived proceedings which the plaintiff had taken resulting in this useless litigation. " Emboldened by the above observations, the plaintiff launched another useless and frivolous litigation, in which the present second appeal has arise.