NATESAN ALIAS KRISHNA GOUNDAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash an order of the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, dated 17th August, 1957. The relevant facts are these:

(2.) ONE Raji Goundan was appointed as a trustee of the Ellayamman Temple in Tirupathur town by the Area Committee by its Resolution No. 186, dated 23rd April, 1956. He then filed an application under Section 87 of the Act for the issue of a certificate on the strength of which he could approach the Magistrate and obtain possession of certain properties which he said belonged to the temple and of which, according to him, Natesan alias Krishna Goundan, the petitioner before this Court, was in wrongful possession. The order of the Deputy Commissioner proceeds on the footing " The Respondent (Natesan alias Krishna Goundan) is the poojari of the temple". Natesan alias Krishna Goundan also appears to have stated before the Deputy Commissioner that the properties mentioned in the petition had been granted for performing pooja in the temple and that so long as he performed the pooja his possession could not be interfered with.

(3.) NOW , under Section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, before a certificate can be issued against a trustee or office -holder or servant of a religious institution, it must be shown that he has been dismissed or suspended from office or that he is otherwise not entitled to be in possession of the property. It is nobody's case that Natesan alias Krishna Goundan has been dismissed or suspended from office. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner is that he is not entitled to possession. The complaint of Mr. Chinnaiya Pillai, the learned advocate, for the petitioner, is that this finding is so manifestly, at variance with Exhibits P -2 and C -1, the only relevant documents filed in the case, that it amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. I am inclined to consider that his complaint is well -founded. It is no doubt true that in Column 2 of Exhibits P -2, the inam is described as Devadayam. It is also true that in Column 8 the inam is described as having been given " for the support of Yellamrna, Goddess at Thirupa -thur ". In Colum 13, the name of the Deity is also shown as Yellamma. If the matter had stopped there, there would have been no difficulty at all. But then, in Column 15, against the heading "Name entered in the survey or in any subsequent accounts and relationship to predecessors" the name " Poojari Govinda" is given. In Colmnn 16, it is stated that the service was being performed by Poojari Govindan, and in Col. 21, the recommendation is "To be confirmed tax free. Title deeds in the name of the Goddess and Poojari Govinda," and the final order of the Commissioner is " Confirmed ". Now, if the poojari was not entitled to be in possession, the direction that title deeds should be issued in the name of the Goddess and the poojari would not have been made. This is a circumstances of very great importance. Though in Column 1 in Exhibit C -i the inam is described as a Devadayam, in Column 12 we find the entry