MUNDACHERI KOMAN Vs. THACHANGAT PUTHAN VITTIL ACHUTHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the three plaintiffs who describe themselves as Hindu Nairs residing within half a mile of the seven plaint temples, and as habitual worshippers at the said temples, instituted seven suits, which have been tried together, under S.92, Civil PC, with the consent of the Advocate-General of Madras, against defendant 1, who is described in the plaint as a Hindu Nair residing the Peringod amsam and desam of the Palghat Taluk, but is admittedly the karnavan or managing member of a Malabar tarwad or joint family. The plaint alleged that the defendant's predecessors, who were originally sanudavis or committee members of the aforesaid temple, had been, in such capacity, in management of the affairs of the devasom; that they had been for some time improperly styling themselves the uralans of the aforesaid devasom; and that recently the defendant and the members' of his family had further begun to claim that the devasom and its endowments belonged to the family, thereby repudiating the public character of the trust. After alleging various acts of mismanagement they prayed for the removal of the defendant and the appointment of a new trustee, an order vesting the devasom properties in such trustee, accounts, and inquiries as to the alleged misappropriation by the defendant and his predecessor, and the settling of a scheme of management.

(2.) The defendant, in his written statement, alleged that the plaint temples were founded, owned and maintained by the defendant's ancestors. Seeing that the worship of God is a holy and meritorious act, the defendant and his ancestors had allowed those who came to the temples to worship there, not as and matter of right, but by the sufferance of the defendant's tarwad. By an understanding between the members of the tarwad, the income of certain tarwad properties was utilised for the maintenance of the davasom, but there were no lands or properties forming the endowments of the devasom. The plaintiffs were not interested in the devasom within the meaning of S.92, Civil PC, bat were men of straw set up by a Nambndri of Malabar Brahmin (the twelfth witness for the plaintiffs), who was financing the suit to prevent his eviction from tarwad lands in his occupation under a melkanam, or new demise which had been granted, as appeared from the evidence, to a junior member of the defendant's tarwad. The statement in the plaint that the defendant's ancestors had been sanudayis (that is to say, members of a temple committee), was false. The temples had never been public and the defendant's predecessors were never trustees, and could not be charged with repudiating the trust.

(3.) Issue 2 " Whether the properties are public religious trusts," was tried first, and the Subordinate Judge finding that they were not, dismissed the suit. On appeal to the Madras High Court, Phillips and Odgers, JJ., in separate but concurring judgments, answered the issue in the affirmative, reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit for disposal on the other issues.