RAJAGOPALASWAMI TEMPLE Vs. B. RAJARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is by the plaintiff, who succeeded in the court of the first instance, but lost his appeal in the first appellate Court.

(2.) The suit property is a house situate at Kumbakonam town, which was endowed for certain charities for the plaintiff Sri Rajagopalaswami temple. The endowment was created by a registered partition deed, dated 24th June, 1923 (exhibit A -1) by the then owners of the suit property, in addition to and in continuation of an earlier trust and endowment created by a registered settlement deed, between one Abboy Chettiar and Balakrishna Chettiar. In that partition deed, it is specifically recited that out of the income of the plaint property, which is described as the fourth item in A Schedule under the said document, the charity should be performed and conducted by the heirs of the owners of the property without any powers of alienation. A portion of the said property has been acquired by the Government and under the land acquisition proceedings the compensation amount is also kept in Court deposit in Original Petition No. 90 of 1930 by the deed, dated 23rd April, 1970 (exhibit B -1) the first defendant is alleged to have purchased the property from one Navaneetham -mal. The said sale deed is invalid in law. She has no right to alienate the property endowed in favour of the plaintiff -temple. The second defendant is a tenant under the first defendant. The plaintiff, by notice (exhibit A -5) called upon the defendants to deliver possession, but the first defendant denied the title of the trust and set up his own title. Hence the necessity for the suit.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written -statement to the effect that the plaintiff -temple is not represented by the proper person. It is a private one belonging to Arya Vysia Community at Kumbakonam town and the said community alone is entitled to represent the said temple. The plaintiff, who is an appointee of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, is not entitled to represent the temple. The suit property is not the trust property. No charity was performed from out of the income of the suit property and the temple has no title or possession. Further, the performance of any charity out of the income from the property will not make the property a charitable one. There is no bar for the transfer of ownership. The alleged compensation was not deposited into Court on behalf of the trust, but it has been deposited only in the name of the individual owners. Further, the first defendant filed a petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the second defendant, which had been ordered. Only as a result of that the present suit had come to be filed.