RAMANATHAN CHETTI Vs. MURUGAPPA CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura (East) in a suit which was brought by the respondent to enforce his trun of management of the plaint temple and its endowments, for a period of 3 years commencing from the 15 July 1899.

(2.) It is admitted that the plaint temple (with its endowments) is a public religious institution that the trusteeship thereof is hereditary in the family of the parties to the suit, but that the family has no beneficial interest in the property or income of the temple. Mayandi Chetti, the grandfather of the respondent and the great-grandfather of the appellant, was the last sole trustee, and on his death, the office devolved by inheritance on his male descendants by his two wives. Four of them were his grandsons or great-grandsons through his first wife, and the other four grandsons or great-grandsons through the second (see paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge). Under the notion apparently, that Mayandi's property devolved in equal undivided moieties (1 Strange's Hindu Law p. 205) upon the respective descendants by his two wives, the management of the temple was until about 1881-82, conducted by these in rotation, each for one year.

(3.) We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the management was taken alternately by one member of each branch and not--as falsely asserted by the appellant,--by the members of the senior branch consecutively for four years and then by the members of the junior branch likewise for four years. We also agree with the Subordinate Judge that since 1881-82 (in which year the management was in the hands of a member of the junior branch) the respondent has been managing the temple not only during the years of his own turn, but also during the years of the turns of the members of the junior branch. We are, however, unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge that the appellant, at the end in July 1899 of the year of his turn transferred possession of the villages to the respondent, that the respondent was thereafter dispossessed and that he is on that ground entitled to the decree sought for.