NATARAJA TAMBIRAN Vs. KAILASAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three consolidated appeals. One of the appeals is from a decree of the High Court of Madras made in a suit (No. 1 of 1905) in which Shunmugam Pillai and Kailasam Pillai ware the plaintiffs and Nataraja Tambiran, Ramalinga Tambiran and Sankaralinga Tambiran were the defendants. That suit was instituted in the District Court of Madura on the 1st May 1903, and by it the plaintiffs sought a declaration that none of the defendants was a lawful trustee of the Tiruvannamalai Mutt and of certain dependent Devastanams or temples and other reliefs. Another of the consolidated appeals is a cross appeal from the decree of the High Court in that suit. The other of the consolidated appeals is an appeal from a decree of the High Court made in a suit (No. 2 of 1903), in which Kaliswara Gurukal, Vaduganantha Gurukal, and Suppiah Gurukal were the plaintiffs, and Nataraja Tambiran and Sankaralinga Tambiran were the defendants. The latter suit was instituted in the District Court of Madura on the 2nd July 1935 and by it the plaintiffs sought a declaration that neither of the defendants was the lawful trustee of the same Devastanams or the endowments of those temples and other reliefs. The consent in writing of the Advocate-General for Madras was obtained under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1832, for the institution of each of those suits. The main contention in each suit was as to the position of Nataraja; that is, as to whether he was a trustee or held in some other capacity. On the 14th March 1903 the District Judge found that Nataraja was not a trustee of the Mutt or of the Devastanams, and that no suit lay under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, in respect of the Mutt or of the Devastanams, which in his opinion went with the Matt, and by his decree dismissed the suits. From those decrees there were appeals to the High Court. In each of the appeals the High Court set aside the decree of the District Judge and remanded the suit for trial.

(2.) ON the remand the suits came on for trial before the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad, who will hereafter be referred to as the trial Judge, by whom they were by consent tried together with a suit which was instituted in 1912 by one Ponnambala Desika against Nataraja, alleging that he and not Nataraja was the lawfully appointed head of the Mutt Separate issues were framed in each of the three suits, and evidence was recorded. The trial Judge by his decree dismissed the suit of 1912; that decree was not appealed and became final.

(3.) THE appeal to the High Court in Suit No. 1 of 1905 was numbered 317 of 1913 in the High Court file, and the appeal in Suit No. 2 of 1605 was numbered 318 in that file. The appeals were heard together by the High Court, and all the evidence which had been recorded in those suits and in the suit of 1912 was before the learned Judges before whom the appeals in the suits of 1905 came for hearing. The High Court by its decree in Suit No. 1 of 1905 confirmed the decree of the trial Judge in so far as it dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in respect of the office of Pandara Sannidhi of the Mutt and its endowments, and reversed that decree in other respects, and by its decree in Suit No. 2 of 1905 reversed the decree of the trial Judge, and declared that Nataraja was not the lawful trustee of the Devastanams and the endowments thereof, and directed the lower Court to appoint a fresh trustee of the said Devastanamp, and to place the trustee so appointed in possession of the said Devastanams and endowments.