C THIRUVENGADA MUDALIAR Vs. MRAJABADAR MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are concerned with the affairs of the Sri Thiruvateeswarar Devasthanam in Madras. It is common ground that it has been the usual custom for two trustees or Dharmakartas to be in joint management of those affairs. They are appointed under Act XX of 1863 by the Madras Hindu Devasthanam Committee, and are subject to whatever control is given to the Committee by that Act. Appellant was thus appointed in 1929. In 1934 appellant's colleague died, and his vacancy was finally filled up by the appointment of one M.N. Rajabathar Mudaliar (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent 2) on 18 November, 1935, the appointment being expressly limited to a period of three years. On 27th November, respondent 2 informed appellant that he proposed to take charge of his office at the temple the next morning. Appellant refused however to recognise the validity of respondent 2's appointment on the ground that a trustee could be appointed only for life and. so did not permit respondent 2 to assume joint charge with him. After waiting some days respondent 2 on 4 December, affixed his own lock and seal to the temple office. On 5 December, appellant filed the first of his two suits (1095/1935) in the City Civil Court. In that suit he prayed for a declaration that respondent 2 was not a lawfully appointed trustee, and an injunction to Restrain him from interfering with appellant management. An interim injunction was granted, but was revoked on 12 December.

(2.) Meanwhile on 9 December, a notice was sent by the Honorary Joint Secretaries of the Committee to appellant informing him that an urgent meeting of the Committee would be held on the 11 to consider his conduct in disobeying the Committee's orders to give joint charge of the temple management to Respondent 2; and calling upon him to attend that meeting if he wished to show cause against the proposal to remove him from his office. Appellant sent a lawyer's notice protesting against the Committee's actions and procedure, and refused to attend the meeting. The meeting was held, arid the five members who attended it (out of a total strength of fourteen) unanimously resolved to dismiss the appellant. Appellant thereupon filed his second suit 1130 of 1935 in which he prayed for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, and that he was therefore entitled to continue in office; and for an injunction restraining the Committee and respondent from interfering with his possession and management. The two suits were tried together by the learned City Civil Judge and were both dismissed. These are appeals against the decrees in the two suits.

(3.) There are three questions for determination in these appeals; (i) what are the powers of the Committee in the matter of the dismissal of a trustee? Can it dismiss him at its own pleasure, or must a dismissal, be only for good and sufficient cause? (ii) If the latter, did such good and sufficient cause exist? and (iii) Has the Committee power to appoint respondent 2 (or any other trustee) for a limited period?