SETTIKARA VENKATARAMA CHETTIAR Vs. OPDAMODARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have brought this suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, for framing a scheme for the management of Ramalingam and Choudeswari Amman temple in Andichetty Street, Cogai, Salem. The 1 defendant is a managing trustee of the temple and defendants 2 to 10 are trustees of the temple who aided and instigated the 1 defendant in his various misdeeds and breaches of trust. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged various acts of mismanagement against the 1 defendant who denied all of them and opposed the framing of the scheme. When the case came on for trial the plaintiffs and the defendants did not press for the trial of all the issues raised in the case." They agreed to the Court framing a suitable scheme for the proper management of the institution. The plaintiffs did not press for the removal of the defendants from office and the defendants did not press for the trial of the case on the merits and waived their objection to the validity of the sanction obtained by the plaintiffs from the Collector for the institution of the suit. The Subordinate Judge of Salem framed a scheme and provided for a Hoard of nine trustees of whom three should be ejected by the Chettithanakars from among their number and four by all the beneficiaries including the Chettithanakars and one to be elected by those who pay or have paid one thousand rupees or more towards the temple at a time, and one should be nominated by the eldest member of the family of Nungavalli Venkatarama Chettiar, the founder of the temple. The defendants 2, 3, 4, 7 and the legal representative of the 10 defendant appealed to the District judge, Salem, who dismissed their appeal. They have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) Two points are raised in this appeal : one is, that the 19 Chettithanakars are hereditary trustees and (2) that they should not have been removed without finding that they were guilty of misconduct and not fit to be trustees. The District judge, on a consideration of the evidence in the case, has come to the conclusion that the 19 Chettithanakars among whom some are plaintiffs and some defendants, are not hereditary trustees.Ex. A is the deed of trust dated 9th January, 1925 executed by Venkatarama Chetti in favour of 19 persons. in that he stated that he alone was unable to make and set up idols of Ramalingam and Choudeswari Amman in the Chou-deswari Amman Temple Devasthanam built by him and that the 19 persons agreed to raise a fund and to put up the idol in the temple and according to the agreement that they set up the idols of Ramalingam and Choudeswari Amman and that they agreed to purchase property for endowing the temple and the document goes on to state "that the 19 persons should manage the temple from generation to generation. The contention of the learned Advocate-General is that the document does not confer hereditary right upon the 19 persons mentioned in Ex. A. It is clear from the documents that funds were collected by Venkatarama Chetti and by the 19 persons mentioned in it; that they built the temple, installed the idols in it and that they collected funds for the upkeep of the temple and managed the temple under Ex. A. The recital as regards the devolution of the management is to manage the same from generation to generation performing the daily pooja, aradhanai, festivals and other things regularly and live happily as long as the Sun and Moon last."

(3.) There is a further recital to the same effect after mentioning the properties of the temple "the properties are delivered to you as being fit to be managed, held, and enjoyed from generation to generation by setting up the idols of Ramalingam and Choudeswari Amman and others as stated above". From the document it is clear that Venkatarama Chetti and the 19 persons intended that the management should be in their families. Considering the Hindu sentiment as regards the hereditary management of trust institutions it cannot be successfully urged that the parties to Ex. A did not intend that the right to trusteeship should be in their families.