SAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI Vs. TPBALAGOPALAKRISHNA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The "plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 01 sued the Pandara Sannadhi of Dharmapuram Athinam for the recovery of a certain sum of money due on a promissory note executed by him for articles purchased according to the plaintiff "for the necessary use of the said Athinam" and he prayed for a decree directing payment "by the defendant from the funds of his Athinam Mutt." A razinamah decree was passed which provided for the recovery of the amount decreed "from the properties of Dharmapuram Athinam Mutt, of which the defendent is trustee."

(2.) The defendant resigned the office of Pandara Sannadhi in favour of the appellant who has been made a party to the execution proceedings taken by the decree-holder to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the Mutt propertiRs. The appellant raised the contention that the decree cannot be enforced against the Mutt propertiRs. The Subordinate Judge following the decision in Vidyapurna Thirthaswami V/s. Vidyanidhi Thirthaswami (1903) I.L.R. 27 M. 435 held that the Pandara Sannadhi had full control over the income of the Mute properties and that it was not open to him by relinquishing his position to deprive the creditor of his power to recover his debt from the income of the Mutt during the life-time of the Pandara Sannadhi.

(3.) The District Judge was of opinion that these questions could not be decided in execution proceedings and that the appellant's only remedy was to set aside the decree by a suit.