M SHANMUGA MUDALIAR Vs. PKACTVEERAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought for some modification in the scheme framed by this Court in 1920 in respect of the management of Sri Arunachalaswaraswamy Devasthanam at Tiruvannamalai. The only question raised by the appellants relates to one of the points dealt with by the learned Judge in para. 12 of his judgment. The persons who are said to have raised that question before the learned Judge do not appear before us. We have examined the pleadings in the lower Court and they do not give any indication that the point dealt with in that paragraph was intended to be raised. It is however represented that towards the end of the argument before the learned District Judge suggestions of the kind referred to in para. 12 were made by certain persons. While as regards two of these suggestions the learned Judge contented himself with leaving the matter to the discretion of the Board, he went further as regards the third suggestion, namely that no member of the Reddiar community should be appointed a trustee of the temple. Some of the observations made by the learned Judge on the point last referred to are open to criticism, especially the way in which the learned Judge disposes of the fact that endowments for the suit temple have been made by the members of the Reddiar community.

(2.) The documents tendered in evidence in this appeal and which have been admitted by us so far as they are public documents also show that on more than one occasion in the past, the members of that community have been appointed trustees of the suit temple by the authorities who then had the appointing power. In these circumstances we think it best to say that the observations made by the learned Judge in para. 12 of his judgment as regards the Reddiar community had better be treated as not made. As the Court interpreting below has not incorporated any specific disqualification about that community in the scheme as finally settled by him, we do not think it necessary to say more than this, that in respect of applicants from that community, the Board will exercise the same discretion as it is expected to exercise in respect of applications from the members of the other communities for a seat on the trust Board and deal with each application on its own merits in the light of the usage and the past history of the temple. To this extent the appeal is allowed; but in this view there need not be any order as to the costs of the appeal.

(3.) A memorandum of objections has been preferred by the Endowments Board and three points were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Board. The main objection related to Clause 4 of the scheme so far as it recognizes defendant 1 as a life trustee unless removed for good cause. It has been argued that if this is the creation of a life trusteeship in his favour for the first time, it is not in the interests of the institution to create such a life tenure, but that, if on the other hand, it is to be regarded as a recognition of a pre-existing life tenure, it is opposed to the provisions of Section 51, Religious Endowments Act, because Clause 4 of that section enacts that all the non-hereditary trustees lawfully holding office on the date of the commencement of that Act shall be entitled to hold office only for one year from that date. We do not understand the learned Judge as intending to create a life tenure in defendant 1 by his scheme. He seems to proceed on the footing that defendant 1 was already entitled to the office for life. Mr. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Endowments Board, has questioned the correctness of that view.