A RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. SWAMINATHA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintift is the appellant before this Court. He was one of the five Committee Members of the Meenakshi Sundraswarar Saivite Devastanam at Madura, the other four having been defendants 1 to 4. He and two of the other four Committee Members defendants 3 and 4 in the present suit) filed an appeal to the High Court in a former suit spending monies for the expenses of that appeal out of the Devasthanam funds. The High Court dismissed the appeal in 1898 as unnecessary, (see the case of Aligirisami Naiker v. Sunderaswara Aiyar (1898) I.L.R. 21 M. 278) and directed that the costs incurred by the present plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 in prosecuting that appeal in the High Court "must be paid by themselves out of their private funds as their appeal was uncalled for." In other words it was declared by the High Court that the temple funds ought not to have been drawn upon for the expenses of that appeal and the Committee Members who were responsible for the filing of that appeal should pay such expenses out of their private funds. It followed as a necessary consequence that if they had already drawn upon the temple funds for such expenses they were bound to return to the temple treasury out of their own private funds the amount of such expenses.

(2.) The amount which had been spent out of the temple funds on that unnecessary appeal was Rs. 990-10-0. Plaintiff believing that he (as one of the five Committee Members) was liable for only 1/5 of the amount so improperly spent, paid Rs. 198-2-0 representing his quota. The temple trustee then sued all the five Committee Members in O.S. No. 455 of 1900 for the balance of Rs. 792-8-0 and costs of suit. He got a decree against all the five Committee Members in the Court of First Instance, but on appeal by defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff not having been a party to that appeal they were exonerated by the Appellate Court, because they (defendants 1 and 2) were not formal parties on the record in the High Court Appeal case. Plaintift was obliged to pay whole of the decree amount in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 455 of 1900.

(3.) The plaintiff brought the present suit against the other four members of the committee claiming from each of them, (a) 1/5 share of the Rs. 990-10-0 i.e. Rs. 198-2-0 spent improperly on the High Court appeal, (b) 1/5 share of cost (i.e.) Rs. 37-11-0 awarded to the temple trustee in the suit O.S. No. 455 of 1900 brought by him (the trustee) against the Committee members and (c) interest on these two same at 12 par cent per annum from this date when the whole money was recovered from plaintiff such interest amounting to Rs. 84- 13-0 total Rs. 320-10-0, from each of the four sets of defendants.