JANAKI AMMAL Vs. SANJEEVI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this second appeal is whether a deed of release Ex. B in and by which the husband of the fourth defendant one Pattabhirama Chetti relinquished his right to the management of the temple of Sri Anjaneyaswami described in Schedule A to the plaint in favour of his brother Sanjeevi Chetti is valid. The learned District Munsif was of the opinion that it was invalid; the learned Subordinate Judge took a different view. It is against this? decision that the present appeal has been preferred by the fourth defendant.

(2.) It is necessary to set out a few facts. The said Anjaneyaswami temple was founded by the plaintiff's father Singaperumal Chetti, the first defendant's grandfather Thiruvengadam Chetti and the father of defendants 2 and 3 Muthukrishna Chetti. They were members of an undivided Hindu family. They also made certain endowments for the due administration of the said temple. On 15th June, 1887, they became divided and entered into an arrangement by which all the family property they were possessed of including the right to the management of the temple and its properties was divided among themselves in accordance with the decision of the panchayatdars who were appointed by them to effect the said division. The arrangement is embodied in Ex. A. So far as the management of the temple and its properties is concerned, the arrangement is set out thus: That Thiruvengadam Chetti, the eldest member shall be in management of the aforesaid temple and the properties for a period of two years from the 1 Ani of Sarvajit year corresponding to 13 June, 1887, that from the 1 Ani of the third year next the said Singaperumal Chetti shall be in management for a period of one year and that from the 1 Ani of the next year Muthukrishna Chetti shall be in management till the end of a period of one year and thus they shall be managers by rotation and conduct the charities of the said temple, that when the management changes hands from one sharer to the other sharer, the outgoing manager shall hand over possession of the moveable properties of the said temple such as jewels, vessels etc., and also the fund and lands to the incoming manager and that he shall hand over possession of these things? along with an account relating to the profits and expenses of the previous years. In this manner the aforesaid three parties and those persons succeeding them respectively by hereditary right shall be managers by rotation.

(3.) The arrangement was acted on and the property was managed in rotation by the parties and their sons. Muthukrishna Chetti died leaving him surviving his two sons Pattabhirama Chetti husband of the fourth defendant and Sanjeevi Chetti the plaintiff herein. Pattabhirama Chetti and Sanjeevi Chetti became divided on the 31 January, 1915, and in regard to their turns of management they came to an arrangement by which each of the brothers should manage the property for a period of six months. Thus even this right of management was divided between the brothers. Pattabhirama Chetti and Sanjeevi Chetti managed the temple by turns in accordance with the arrangement and on 7 July, 1926, Pattabhirama Chetti executed a deed of release the validity of which is now in question in favour of Sanjeevi Chetti, the plaintiff, and the operative portion of the said release runs thus: We both effected division on 31 January, 1915 and as regards the rotation management which we both made for one year out of four years in the said temple, each of us looks after the same for six months according to the turn of each; and as I have no male issue, as I am suffering from diabetes, heart trouble and other troublesome diseases and have become bodily weak and am quite infirm, as I am afraid of death at any moment and as you yourself are my future heir and brother, I have hereby released to you my six months rotation-- hereditary management--right in the said temple; and hence along with your six months rotation--management--right you and your heirs shall hereditarily and absolutely manage the entire one year's rotation-- management--right of our family inclusive of my six months right .... Hereafter I and my heirs have no right or claim whatsoever in respect of the right of management to the temple or its properties.