CHETTIKULAM SRI EKAMBARESWARASWAMI AND SRI DHANDAYUDHAPANISWAMI TEMPLES, REPRESENTED BY SOLE TRUSTEE, DEVARAYA REDDIAR Vs. ARUNACHALA GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of this petition is a promissory note executed by one T. D. Palaniappa Mudaliar in favour of the first respondent for Rs. 100 on 14 August, 1933. Palaniappa Mudaliar describes himself therein as managing dharmakartha of a certain temple at Chettikulam, and recites also that he is borrowing the money as manager of the temple and that repayment is to be made "from out of the properties of the said temple . The first respondent sued upon the note and obtained a decree both against Palaniappa Mudaliar personally, and against the properties of the temple. This is a petition by the temple with the contention that it should not have been held liable.

(2.) That the money was actually borrowed, and expended for temple purposes, and that the loan was necessary are facts which are not now disputed. Nor can it be seriously urged that if Palaniappa Mudaliar was in fact authorised to borrow, his transaction will not bind the temple. It is contended, however, that he was not so authorised--on two grounds: (i) because the other two trustees did not join in executing the note; and (ii) because he did not obtain the previous sanction of the Temple Committee as he was bound to do under the terms of a scheme which had been framed to regulate the management of the temple.

(3.) There is no rule of law which requires all the trustees of an institution actually to sign a promissory note. It is enough if those trustees who do not sign have authorised the transaction. It is found as a fact in this case that the two remaining trustees did authorise it. The transaction was therefore the transaction of them all.