RAMALINGAM ALIAS KARUPPANNA KOUNDAR Vs. PERIA KALI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected appeals arise out of a suit brought in the District Court of Salem for setting aside or, in the alternative, for modifying the scheme framed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board (hereinafter referred to as the " Board " (for the management of a group of four temples situated in the village of Pudupatti, Rasipuram taluk, Salem District. The temples had all along been managed as a single religious institution by the ancestors of the plaintiff and the second defendant, and in 1939 they were declared by the Board to be " excepted temples " as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Disputes and quarrels, however ensued between the plaintiff and the second defendant on whom the right of management had devolved, and the second defendant applied to the Board under Section 62 of the Act for settling a scheme for the management of the temples in question, alleging various acts of mismanagement and irregularities against the plaintiff and his own exclusion from management. The Board found on enquiry that: there had been several proceedings in civil and criminal courts as a result of quarrels between these two persons (that is the present plaintiff and second defendant) "and that it was therefore necessary that a scheme should be settled for the proper management of the temples and their properties. It accordingly settled a scheme on the 1 August, 1942.

(2.) The scheme vests the administration of the temples in" the present hereditary trustees and three non-hereditary trustees" (Clause 2) and provides, inter alia that the Board shall have power to appoint a managing trustee from among the trustees for a period of one year and to remove him from the office of managing trustee for valid reasons (Clause 4). The managing trustee is to have power to do certain acts which (except in one matter to be presently mentioned) can be collectively styled as routine acts of day to day management (Clause 5). He is to convene, a meeting of the trustees at least once a month for passing accounts and " for considering any other matter connected with the administration of the devasthanam." He is to submit to the Board " in consultation with the other trustees" a budget of probable receipts and expenditure for the ensuing. fasli (Clause 7). The Board is to have the power of issuing directions from time to time regulating the internal management of the temples (Clause 8), and, save as provided in the scheme, the provisions of the Act and rules and by-laws framed thereunder are made to apply to the temples and their endowments (Clause 9). In pursuance of the scheme the Board also appointed one of the non-hereditary trustees as the managing trustee.

(3.) The plaintiff brought the present suit under Section 63, Sub-section (4) of the Act alleging that the scheme was unnecessary and ultra vires, and objecting specifically to some of its provisions.