D MEENAKSHISUNDARAM PILLAI Vs. P NAMMALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants filed the suit in the lower Court for themselves and as representatives of the Sirugudi Vellala Community of Tirunelveli District for a declaration that the first defendant Nammalwar is not the duly appointed trustee of the suit math called Sri Dakshi-namoorthi Matam, and for framing a scheme for the selection of the head of the math from among the Sirugudi Vellalas of tirunelveli District having the necessary qualification in the vacancy that would be caused by the reason of the said declaration and to vest the math and its properties in the person so selected and to call upon the first defendant to render a true and proper account of the income and expenditure of the math from May, 1957.

(2.) THE suit math was founded by one Vedanayagaswami, who executed a registered will Exhibit A-1 dated 20th April 1920 providing for the management of the suit math. It is clear from the will and particularly from the second schedule of the same Riving a description of the charities to be conducted in the math, that it was founded for carrying out the public and religious charities mentioned therein at the samadhi of the founder Guru-natha Sri Michael Sidhar. The founder vedanayagaswami nominated one Pichan-diya Pillai alias Paramanandha Sadhu as trustee for the math after his lifetime and provided for an Advisory Committee consisting of nine persons mentioned by him. He provided for hereditary succession according to lineal primogeniture of D. Vedanayagam Pillai and kandaswami Pillai, mentioned as Nos. 1 and 9 in the Committee appointed by him. The said D. Vedanayagam Pillai is the maternal uncle of the first plaintiff's father. The sixth defendant, as the elder brother's son of first plaintiff, is the person who is entitled to become a member of the committee by hereditary right. But he has become a Christian and he is not entitled to be a member of the Committee. The second plaintiff Ramanathan is the son of Kandaswami Pillai and he is also entitled to become a member of the Advisory Committee by hereditary right. The other members of the Advisory Committee appointed by the original founder vedanayagaswami had only a life interest in the management of the suit math as advisory Committee members. Defendants 2 to 5, who are closely related to the first defendant, are now said to be the members of the Advisory Committee. Paramanandha Sadhu, who succeeded Vedanayagaswami as trustee of the suit math, in his turn executed the will, Ex. A-2, providing for his successor. He nominated the first defendant's father Muthu Pillai alias Paramanandaswami as the head of the math after him. Muthu Pillai alias Paramanandhaswami in his turn executed the will, Exhibit A-3 dated 20th January, 1956 appointing his own eon, the first defendant herein, as his successor. The first defendant succeeded to management of the suit math on the death of his father in May, 1957 and this suit has been filed in 1961 questioning the validity of the appointment of the first defendant as the trustee under Exhibit A-3, after exchange of notices evidenced by exhibits A-8 and A-9.

(3.) THE founder Vedanayagaswami has mentioned the qualifications of the persons to be appointed as trustees in his will Exhibit A-1. According to him, the person nominated should have been born in Sirugudi Vellala community and he should be not less than 35 years of age and should possess good quality, good conduct, sympathy and devotion to Government and he should profess the Hindu Religion. While holding the post of a trustee, it is necessary that he should be a thuravi. It is clearly mentioned in the will that it is not, however, obligatory that the said person should wear kashayam (ochre robe ). In Exhibit A-2 Paramanandha Sadhu, the successor of Vedanayagaswami, has added further conditions that the trustee nominated by him should not only remain as thuravi but also wear kashayam, that he should remain in the math and perform the pooja and other services, but should not reside in the math along with his wife or female disciples, or female cooks and that he should not have any family connection or relationship or money transaction. In Exhibit A-3 the first defendant's father has purported to relax the conditions by stating that as some of the conditions mentioned in the wills of his two predecessors are not suitable in the present age, he did not like to mention them in his will. The founder Vedanayagaswami has provided for the devolution of the trusteeship for the management of the suit math and stated the qualification to be possessed by such trustee and it is not open to his successors to alter the same. In Gurupada v. Manmohan, AIR 1936 Cal 215, it has been held that a fundamental change in the devolution of the office of Shebait, which is inconsistent with the terms of the original foundation, cannot be valid and that even the founder cannot alter the line of succession unless he has reserved that right to himself. In Sital das v. Sant Ram, the Supreme Court has stated that succession to Mahantship of Math or religious institution is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution, except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment.