C THIRUVENGADA MUDALIAR Vs. MRAJABATHAR MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question whether the Madras Hindu Devasthanam Committee, created under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, is bound, in appointing a trustee to make the appointment for life or whether it can make the appointment for a term of years. On the 8 March, 1929, the Committee appointed the appellant a trustee for life of the Sri Thiruvatteswarar temple in Madras. On the 18 November, 1935, the Committee appointed the respondent a trustee of the same temple, but limited his appointment to a period of three years. The appellant objected to the respondent entering upon the duties of his office. The reason given was that the appointment to be valid must be for life. On the 5th December, 1935, the appellant filed in the City Civil Court the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the respondent's appointment is invalid and for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the appellant's management. The principal City Civil Judge who tried the case held that the Committee had power to appoint the respondent a trustee for a period of three years and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed to this Court, but without success. The appeal was heard by King, J., and the present appeal is from his judgment, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) For the purpose of appreciating the provisions of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, it will be useful to refer first to the Madras Endowments and Escheats Regulation, 1817, which governed religious endowments in the Presidency until the passing of the Act of 1863 by the Government of India. Clause 2 of the Regulation vested in the Board of Revenue the general superintendence of all endowments in land or money granted for the support of mosques, Hindu temples or colleges, or for other pious and beneficial purposes. Clause 3 declared it to be the duty of the Board to take such measures as might be necessary to ensure that all endowments made for the maintenance of such establishments were duly appropriated to the purpose for which they were destined by the Government or the individuals by whom the endowments were made. To enable the Board the better to carry into effect the duties entrusted to it by the Regulation, power was given in Clause 7 to appoint local agents in each zilla. Clause 12 provided that in those cases in which the nomination had usually rested with the Government, or with the public officer, or in which no private person might be competent and entitled to make sufficient provision for the-succession to the trust and management, it was the duty of the local agents to propose for the approval and confirmation of the-Board, a person or persons for the charge of trustee, manager or superintendent. On the receipt of the report and information required by Clause 12, the Board was required by Clause 13 either to appoint the person or persons nominated for their approval, or to make such other provision for the trust, management or superintendence as might seem right and fit to them, with reference to the nature and conditions of the endowment. Therefore, by virtue of this clause, the Board had full power to make such arrangements as they considered to be necessary for the proper management of the trust.

(3.) The Religious Endowments Act, 1863, took away from the Board of Revenue the management of religious endowments, and the provincial Government was directed to appoint one or more Committees in every division or district to take the place and to exercise the powers of the Board and the local agents cinder the Regulation of 1817. The provincial Government duly appointed a Committee to function in the City of Madras. Committees were also appointed to function in the mofussil, but only the Madras Committee now exists. So far as the mofussil is concerned, Hindu religious endowments are now governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. Section 9 of the Act of 1863 provides that every member of a Committee appointed under the Act shall hold his office for life unless removed for misconduct or unfitness, but there is no corresponding provision in respect of appointments made by the Committee to fill vacant trusteeships. The important section so far as this case is concerned is Section 12 which reads as follows: Immediately on the appointment of a committee as above provided for the superintendence of any such mosque, temple or religious establishment, and for the management of its affairs, the Board of Revenue, or the local agents acting under the authority of the said Board shall transfer to such committee all landed or other property which at the time of appointment shall be under the superintendence, or in the possession of the said Board or local agents, and belonging to the said religious establishment, except as is hereinafter provided for, and thereupon the powers and responsibilities of the Board and the local agents, in respect to such mosque, temple or religious establishment, and to all land and other property so transferred, except as above, and except as regards acts done and liabilities incurred by the said Board or agents previous to such transfer, shall cease and determine. All the powers which might be exercised by any Board or local agent for the recovery of the rent of land or other property transferred under this section may from the date of such transfer be exercised by such committee to whom such transfer is made.