M V K VENKATARAMAN Vs. SSIVAGURUNATHA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two suits out of which these appeals arise relate to certain transactions entered into by the trustees for the time being of the Velur Devasthanam. A few facts concerning that institution and its trustees may be conveniently set forth at the outset. The Velur Devasthanam is a well-known and wealthy Siva Temple at Vaideeswarankoil and its affairs are managed by the Matathipathi of the Dharmapuram mutt; in other words, the head of that mutt is the ex officio trustee of the Devasthanam. The first Matathipathi with whom we are concerned is Sivagnana I who assumed that office in the year 1890. He continued to be the Matathipathi till 1903 when he relinquished his right in favour of Manickavachaga I. It must be mentioned that in 1900 Sivagnana I had appointed ManickavachagaI as Junior Pandarasannadhi and between 1900 and 1903 there were quarrels which led to proceedings in Court between these two persons. Finally, as I have said, in 1903 Sivagnana I relinquished his rights and Manickavachaga I became thereafter his successor. The latter's trusteeship thus commenced in the year 1903; but Sivagnana 1, some time later, tried to reassert his rights with the result, that a suit was filed. With that suit we are not concerned and it is sufficient to state that Sivagnana I died in 1906. Manickavachaga I continued to fee the Matathipathi till his death in 1914. He was succeeded by Sivagnana 2, who, it may be noted, had been Kattalai Thambiran from 1903. From his accession in 1914 he continued to be the Matathipathi till 1918 when he died. These are the three trustees to whose acts reference will have to be made in the course of this judgment.

(2.) I may with advantage also refer to what is called a scheme suit filed in connexion with this Devasthanam. In 1911, a suit was filed (O.S. No. 10 of 1911) against the then trustee Manickavachaga I for his removal, for appointment of new trustees and for the framing of a scheme In that, certain transactions entered into by the trustee, including those which form the subject-matter of the present two suits, were impeached. The findings arrived at in that action as has been conceded, do not concern us. The Sub-Court in O.S. No. 10 of 1911 passed a decree appointing the present plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Sivagnana 2 (Manickavachaga I having in the meantime died), the trustees of the temple. Against that decree, an appeal was filed to the High Court. In the meantime, the present two suits (O.S. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1924) were filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2. The High Court decided the appeal from the scheme suit decree in 1919. They directed that the Pandarasannadhi should be the sole trustee and removed the other two trustees appointed by the sub-Court. The present two suits were, as I have said, filed by the other two trustees, alone and the Pandarasannadhi, the third trustee, was impleaded as one of the defendants, the reason being that he supported and justified the acts challenged in the suits. When the High Court in the scheme suit made him the sole trustee his position in regard to these two actions became somewhat anomalous. They were ostensibly filed in the interests of the institution, but he figured in them as the defendant and not as the plaintiff. Apparently, when this was brought to the notice of the High Court, the plaintiff 4 was appointed the Receiver to conduct these two suits. They were filed in 1917 and during the 14 years that have now elapsed, four Pandarasannadhis have died and the trustee now on the record is the 5 in succession from Manickavachaga 1, the original trustee-defendant.

(3.) The objects of the two suits is mainly to get rid of certain decrees passed against the Devasthanam. Appeal No. 361 of 1925 relates to transactions of the Devasthanam with A.P.R.S. Somasundaram Chetty and his father Subramaniam Chetty. I shall refer to these creditors as A P.R.S. for the sake of convenience. O.S. No. 8 of 1924, out of which this appeal arises, has been brought on behalf of the temple to set aside the decree in O.S. 48 of 1909, obtained by A.P.R.S. against the temple. The transaction which was the subject of O.S. No. 48 of 1909 is connected with certain earlier transactions, which must first be set forth. In 1900. certain jewels of the temple were attached for the arrears of kist payable in respect of the temple lands. A.P.R.S. at the request of the then trustees paid the kist amounts due, namely Rs. 114,41-5-7 and got the jewels released from attachment. In consideration of this payment, these jewels were pledged by the temple to A.P.R.S. and a document was executed evidencing the pledge dated 29 May 1900 (Ex. 14). The learned Judge has found, and I agree with him, that it has been proved beyond doubt, that this transaction is binding on the temple. On 17 April 1901 three transactions came into existence. (1) The pledge of 1900 was renewed for Rs. 11,527. The document of pledge is not forthcoming, but that is immaterial. (2) A promissory note for Rs. 12,800 was executed by the temple in favour of A.P.R. Section (Ex. 3). The consideration is made up of three items: (a) Rs. 6,133 8-0, being the amount found due in respect of an earlier promissory note dated 8 June 1900 (Ex. 2); (b) Rs. 1,666-8-0 being the aggregate of two sums Rs. 500 lent on 17 August 1900, and Rs. 1,000 on 16 September 1900, together with interest; and (c) Rs. 5,000 paid to the temple in cash. The total of these three sums is Rs. 12,800 for which Ex. 3 was executed. (3) To provide for the discharge of the sums due under the aforesaid two transactions, the temple executed a lease in favour of A.P.R. Section (K-2). It recites that the total amount due under the document of pledge and the promissory note is Rs. 24,327. A rent is fixed for the land leased and it is stipulated that after certain deductions the balance of the rent is to be adjusted, first against the interest due under the promissory note, next against the interest due under the pledge document, then the principal under the promissory note and lastly the principal under the pledge. All these three transactions, as I have said, were entered into on the same date, 17 April 1901. On 5 April 1904, A.P.R.S., complaining that his possession under the lease K-2 was disturbed, filed O.S. No. 24 of 1904 claiming against the temple Rs. 6,000 as damages. The parties entered into a settlement and at their request the suit was dismissed on 9 July 1904 as settled out of Court.