T S LAKSHMANA AYYAR Vs. RSNAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit from which this appeal is presented was by representative worshippers of the Madura Devasthanam against the ten members of the Madura, etc. Devasthanams Committee, defendants 1 to 10, and the Secretary of State, defendant 11, for a declaration that the appointment by defendant 11 of defendants 1 to 10 as members of that committee is illegal and invalid because defendant 11 has no power to modify the scheme for these Devasthanams framed by the District Court of Madura in O.S. 4 of 1922, and for an injunction restraining defendant a 1 to 10 from interfering with the management of the suit devasthanams. The District Court dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs appeal.

(2.) In O.S. 4 of 1922, which was a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., the District Court, in its decree dated 12 April 1924,. framed a scheme for the better administration of the suit devasthanams, appointing a committee of five members to be known as the Madura etc. Devasthanams Committee. The District Court decree was slightly modified by the High Court on appeal on 31 July 1925. It appears from the judgment in that suit, and is otherwise admitted, that on the date of that scheme there was already in existence a committee of five members known as the Madura, etc. Devasthanams Committee constituted and appointed under Act 20 of 1863. The District Court-in its scheme seems to have adopted that committee as the committee appointed under its scheme. This explains what was at first a rather puzzling feature, namely that the District Court's scheme provided no way of filling up vacancies in the scheme committee. We take it that that was because the committee was really one constituted under Act 20 of 1863 and vacancies would therefore be filled up in the manner provided by that Act. Subsequent to the passing of Madras Acts 1 of 1925 and 2 of 1927 the Local Government by several notifications purported to interfere with and vary the constitution of the Madura, etc., Devasthanams Committee. Ex. B is a notification of 1 February 1927 under Section 16 (1) (b), Act 1 of 1925, varying the strength of the committee and fixing it at six members. Ex. B-l dated 21 August 1928 is a notification under Secs.20 (1) (a), 21 and 22, Madras Act 2 of 1927, which had by then superseded Act 1 of 1925, constituting a committee for the Madura Meenakshi Sundareswarar, etc. Devasthanams and fixing its strength at ten and appointing nine out of the ten members for a period of one year. Ex. B-2 is a notification dated 23 October 1928 under Sec. 22, Act 2 of 1927, whereunder the Local Government appoints the tenth member. Under B-3, a notification dated 4 February 1930 under the proviso to Section 22, the Local Government appointed defendants 1 to 10 as members for one year.

(3.) Plaintiffs general contention before us is that all variations of the original committee appointed under Act 20 of 1863 are ultra vires; that the notifications, B to B 3, are therefore illegal; and that defendants 1 to 10 are not validly appointed. The ground on which the plaint attack was based in the trial Court was that the Local Government's action was tantamount to a modification of the District Court's scheme, which fixed the committee at five and provided no method of filling up vacancies, and that any such modification of the scheme framed by the District Court was illegal, and that is the point which formed the subject of the main issues in the case. But, as the argument was developed before us, it appeared to us that such a contention was irrelevant since, as we have pointed out, the Madura, etc. Davasthanams Committee was not the creature of the District Court's scheme but owed its being to Act 20 of 1863. The plaintiffs have not attacked the authority of the Local Government to vary the constitution of the committee appointed under Act 20 of 1863, but only its authority to modify a schema of the District Court. Any contention and issue framed, for example issues 2 to 4, as to the authority of the Local Government to alter the District Court's scheme therefore became irrelevant, and the parties and the lower Court therefore seem to have missed the real point when these issues were framed and tried.