A RAMANATHAN GHETTIAR Vs. KANAGASABAPATHY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the former of these appeals Defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants, but Mr. T. Rangachariar informed us that he is only instructed to appear for the 4th defendant and we have consequently heard no argument on behalf of the 2nd defendant. In A.S. No. 80, 5 defendant is the appellant and appears by Mr. G.S. Venkatachariar. The suits were brought by certain worshippers in the temple of Sri Minakshi Sundareswaral and other connected temples comprised in what is commonly known as the " Madura etc., Devasthanams." In the suit to which A.S. No. 54 relates the principal prayer was sfor removing the defendants from their respective offices. A.S. 80 is an appeal from the same decree by one of the defendants (Defendant No. 5) in that suit. It is of some importance to describe the defendants ; 1 defendant is one Kuppusami Mudaliar, the Manager of the Sri Minakshi Sundareswaral temple. The other defendants are or were members of the Committee of the said Temple. The 2nd defendant, A. Ramanathan Chettiar, as has been stated, does not appear to argue before us. 3 defendant, C. Sambasiva Mudaliar, gave evidence in the case as D.W. 1 to which evidence more particular reference will be made by and by, and at the end of a lengthy crossexamination tendered his resignation to the Judge so that he has now ceased to be a member o? the Committee. 4 defendant is one Tirugnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi whose conduct will be in question in considering the subject-matter of this appeal. 5 defendant is one A. Rangasami Aiyar, who, I understand, is a leading vakil in Madura and has held the position of Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader. The 6 defendant is K.V. Subramania Aiyar who is, as a matter of fact, dead and has been exonerated by the learned District Judge who tried the suit. The District Judge has ordered the removal of Defendants 2, 4 and 5. As stated, 2nd defendant does not appear before us to urge his appeal. We are, therefore, concerned only with the eases of Defendants 4 and 5. The grounds on which the 4 defendant has been removed from his office are two : (1) that he took part in appointing one T. Minakshisundaram Pillai as trustee of the institution at the end of the year 1920 ; and (2) that he was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the non-performance or imperfect performance of the Chitharai festival in the plaint temple in" April 1921. With regard to the 5 defendant: the only charge against him is No. 1 above, namely, that he voted for T. Minakshisundaram Pillai as trustee of the temple. It will, therefore, be convenient to proceed to investigate the appeal in the first instance by taking the first charge which is common to both the 4 and 5 defendants. 4 defendant was selected to the Temple Committee in 1919, and the 5 defendant in 1911, and the first point at which it is necessary to take up the matter is September 1920, when, in answer to the advertisement for a joint Manager, a telegram, Ex. CCCI was received by the Temple Committee from Minakshisundaram Pillai on the 20 of that month. The original idea seems to have been to associate a joint manager with Chockalingam Chettiar who was the manager at that time. There was apparently some inclination on the part of the Committee to get rid of Chockalingam Chetti because in Letter Ex. CVI, dated 25 September, Minakshisundaram Pillai applied for the post of manager which had not yet been notified as vacant ; but Chockalingam Chetti resigned on the 27 September, and it was then incumbent upon the Committee to appoint a new Manager. They had two meetings on the 3 and 5 October 1920, to consider this question, but apparently it was then resolved merely to call for further applications for the post, and we are told that as many as 37 applicants applied, and on the 17 October, the Committee again met to consider the applications. The proceedings are contained in Ex. XI in which we see the names of the applicants for this post. It is quite evident that this question of appointing a manager was made a communal question. D.W. 1 frankly says that he wanted to appoint a Non-Brahmin Manager. So did the 4 defendant and at the meeting of the 17 October he was not for appointing anybody but Minakshisundaram Pillai. Again the witness points out that in nearly all the resolutions passed by the Committee there has been this controversy and that he has joined Defendants 2 and 4 against Defendants 5 and 6 because they are non-Brahmins. The attitude of Defendants 5 and 6 throughout was that they did not want a non-Brahmin . manager. It will be observed that three members of the Committee, Defendants 2 to 4, were non-Brahmins whereas Defendants 5 and 6 were Brahmins. The non- Brahmin majority defeated at least five candidates proposed by one or other of the Brahmin members. A good deal of discussion has arisen as to who exactly proposed the name of Minakshisundaram Pillai. 3 defendant as D.W. 1, was the only witness for the Defendants 2 to 4 and his evidence has been characterized by the Judge as truthful, though in many cases what he said was to his own detriment. It appeals to me, therefore, that we must accept the opinion of the Judge who saw and heard the witness give his evidence. He says that he thinks that the 4 defendant must have proposed Minakshisundaram Pillai and that the 5 defendant approved his nomination. The only members of the Committee to whom Minakshisundaram Pillai was known at the time were Defendants 5 and 6. 6 defendant may be immediately dismissed from consideration as he voted against the appointment. 3 defendant (D.W.1) says that though he first met him (Minaksnisundaram) at the 5 defendant's house, the latter did not recommend him until the meeting of the 17 October. 5 defendant knew Minakshisundaram Pillai previously as they were both ardent theosophists. It does not seem to me to matter as to whether Minakshisundaram Pillay was actually proposed by the 4th defendant or 5 defendant. We know that he was elected by a majority of 4 to 1 of the Committee (i.e.,) that the 5 defendant, though a Brahmin, apparently convinced that none of the Brahmin candidates had any chance, eventually voted for his fellow theosophist. It may be somewhat reasonably asked what the objection is to the nomination and election of this man Minakshisundaram Pillai. The objection to him may be summed up. He had been for 23 years a Tahsildar in Government service and he left that service before the age limit without a pension, and he was further at the time of his election an undischarged insolvent. In these circumstances, we are asked to say whether those who voted for this man exercised their discretion as reasonable businessmen charged with the duty of protecting an institution whose yearly revenues, we are told, amount to about to two lacs of rupees. Much argument has been expended on the reasons or possible reasons why Minakshisundaram Pillai left Government service. In an affidavit filed by himself in O.S. No. 63 of 1921 he says he was " removed " from Government service for " flagrant violation of the rules regulating the conduct of Government servants. " D. W. 1 states that Minakshisundaram Pillai never placed any credentials before the Committee ; that when the 4 defendant met Minakshisundaram Pillai in the 5 defendant's house about the 23 or 24th September 1920, he then learnt that he was an undischarged insolvent and that he had been a Government servant. The witness says ; I thought from what was said that papers should be gone into so as to see how his Government service determined.

(2.) There seems to be no doubt that Minakshisundaram Pillai had told the Committee or, at any rate let it be known, that he had been adjudicated insolvent and had been a Government servant. D. W. 1 says that Minakshisundaram Pillai showed him (the witness) some printed papers. Prom., these papers the witness says he found that his services were dispensed with and he was not dismissed. The papers shown to him did not appear to be final and he took Minakshisundaram Pillai on trust as to the truth of the printed papers without his producing any official communication. Minakshisundaram Pillai held office for about a month and a half. As early as 23 October 1920, a petition by worshippers was addressed to- the Temple Committee pointing out the disabilities under which Minakshisundaram Piilai laboured and protesting against his appointment. The petition further asked for a full and responsible statement on the points raised; and on the 9 December 1920, Ex. A, points out that the previous petition remained unanswered, that the petitioners understand that the resignation of Minakshisundaram Pillai was due to the fact that the Official Receiver attached the greater part of his salary and the petitioners, therefore, ask that in filling up the vacancy the proceedings of the Committee shall be in public.

(3.) With regard to the 5 defendant it is contended that though he voted for Minakshisundaram Pillai he insisted that certain conditions should be fulfilled which, it is said, would protect the institution. Those conditions were that he should only hold the office for five years, that he should furnish security for Rs. 10,000, and that he should file a scheme suit as soon as possible. Although the 4 defendant had not the courage to go into the box, the 5 defendant did so as D. W. 2. He says that he agreed to support Defendants 2 to 4 over Minakshisundaran Pillai's appointment if they would agree to his (5 defendant s) conditions as he did not want to encourage any internal animosity such as was rife at about that time. Apparently the idea of the 5 defendant, as stated was that in the scheme there would be a provision against the manager's post being held by an insolvent, so that, if Minakshisundaram Pillai did not get his discharge within a short time he would ipso facto cease to be manager. 5 defendant admits that he had knwon Minakshisundaram Pillai as a theo3op-hist for 5 to 10 years and that he received from Dr. Annie Besant a letter of recommendation to him which, however, neither he nor I imagine, anybody else could describe as strong. 5th defendant says that from subsequent events he is prepared to ascribe improper motives to Defendants 2 and 4 in appointing Minakshisundaram Pillai. His whole excuse is in a word that Minakshisundaram Pillai would have been appointed in any ease by non-Brahmin majority on the Committee and that knowing this he (the witness) thought it was better that he should be appointed on the conditions laid down by him. The latter admits that with regard to his retirement from service he was shown one paper and he did not pay any real attention to it nor did he call for any more papers on this subject or on the matter of his insolvency. The witness adds: I did not want to make further enquiries as in my then view he was not a suitable candidate even for the joint manager's post. A fortiori I thought him unfit to be manager. 1 regarded him as not suitable until 17 October, 1920. I thought his appointment against the interests of the Devasthanam under normal conditions. When I changed it was because the evil was one that could not be avoided and which I wished to minimise as far as possible.