SETU IYER Vs. SUNDARAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a vacancy occurred in the trusteeship of the Perur temple on the 29 of August, 1921 and a petition was filed on the 7 of April 1922, alleging that the Devastanam Committee had not filled up the vacancy in accordance with the schema framed for the temple and asking the Court to fill up that vacancy.

(2.) There are two questions that arise here; firstly, was the vacancy filled up by the Devastanam Committee and secondly, is the order of the Court calling for nominations to the vacancy a legal order in view of the allegation that the notice sent to the Committee under Clause 4(b) of the scheme was not proper?

(3.) On the first question we have the various resolutions of the Committee. On the 19 of September, 1921 the Committee were of opinion that one Subbaraya Goundan should be appointed trustee and it was resolved that he be requested to report his willingness to the Committee. Subbaraya Goundan replied to that resolution on the 4 of October, 1921 stating: I learn that the members of the committee are unanimously of opinion that I should be appointed dharmakarta of the Perur Devasthnam if all the members resolve unanimously like that, I consent to accept the office and do the work.