RAMALINGAM PILLAI Vs. VYTHILINGAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this appeal is whether the Appellant is the lawful dhurmakartah or trustee of the ancient temple at Ramasweram, in the district of Madura. The temple is one of the class of religious institutions described in Section 4 of Act XX. of 1863, and according to immemorial usage the dhurmakartah should be a "Vellala Pandaram," or ascetic of the Vellala caste. The last lawful dhurmakartah was one Saminada Pillai, alias Setu Ramanada Pandaram. In 1882 a suit was brought in the District Court of Madura against him, and three other persons who were said to be agents and managers under him, alleging an embezzlement of Rs. 15,681 of money belonging to the temple by him and his agents. By the judgment given in that suit; on the 2nd of March, 18.93, it was found that he, Ramanada Pandaram, was responsible for the whole sum found to be embezzled, viz., Rs.l4,855 10a., and a decree was given against him for that sum with interest under Section 14 of Act XX. of 1863. He was also directed to be removed from the trusteeship of the temple under the provisions of the same section. On the same day an order was made by the District Court appointing a manager to be in charge of the temple until a new Pandaram was appointed according to law. The judgment of the 2nd of March, 1883, was confirmed on appeal by the High Court of Madras on the 30th of January, 1884. Subsequently to the 2nd of March, 1883, and before January, 1884, Ramanada Pandaram was charged with criminal breach of trust, and was afterwards convicted of it and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment.

(2.) ON the 30th of January, 1884, the day on which the High Court confirmed the order of removal, and whilst he was under the charge of criminal breach of trust, Ramanada Pandaram executed a deed of appointment of the Appellant in the following terms: In holding the office of dhurmakartah of Ramasweram devastanum, mutt, &c., we have had to conduct the management of the said devastanum through other persons, being ourself quite ignorant of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the consequence has been that some mistakes were committed which resulted in loss to the devastanum and trouble to us. Having in view the interests of the said devastanum, mutt, athinam, &c., and considering that you are a relation of ours by blood and a descendant of the same ancestry as ourself, and that you are a man of learning and good character; we have this day and according to the established custom invested you with Kashaya (dyed cloths), imparted the Upadesam (spiritual instruction) appertaining to the Asramam (stage of life), given you the appellation of Sethu Ramanadha Pandaram and appointed you as dhurmakartah of the said devastanum, mutt, &c. You are to be our successor from this day with the right and privilege of appointing your successor, &c., and to manage and conduct all the business of the said devastanuni, mutt, at all times and independent of us.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the temple and the mutt are inseparable institutions, the mutt being the original institution, and that* the head of the mutt must be the head of the temple, is not supported by any evidence. The headship of the mutt and of the dhurmakartahship appear to have been held by the same person, but in the case in which there is evidence in the record of an appointment it is to be the dhurmakartah, and this appears to be the principal office. Priority is given to it in the statement in the plaint of the usage and in the appointment of the Appellant. The Subordinate Judge says that the trusteeship being the more important of the two offices almost absorbed the headship of the mutt, so much so that the distinct existence of the mutt was very nearly forgotten, and the succession came to be regarded as for the trusteeship alone. This is in their Lordships' opinion proved by the evidence referred to in his judgment.