LAWS(PVC)-1928-4-35

BAVA C VYTHIALINGA MUDALIAR Vs. GRAMANUJA MUDALIAR

Decided On April 04, 1928
BAVA C VYTHIALINGA MUDALIAR Appellant
V/S
GRAMANUJA MUDALIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Tiruvalur passed under Section 144 of the Criminal P. C.. The main contention of Mr. Muthukrishna Iyer for the petitioner is, that the respondent was not in possession of the Ulthuraikattalai and his client who was in possession and management of the Ulthuraikattalai for two years since the death of Somasundara Mudaliar, should not have been restrained from conducting the festival. The respondent was appointed trustee by the Religious Endowment Board by an order dated the 21 February, 1925. He communicated his appointment to the petitioner and asked him to co-operate with him in the conduct of the festival. The petitioner replied on 3 March, 1928, that he could not recognise the appointment of the respondent as trustee and inasmuch as there was no vacancy in hereditary Trusteeship and this particular appointment, therefore, could not be a valid one and, secondly he could not take part in the management of the festival and Ulthuraikattalai. Thereupon the respondent applied to the Magistrate on 6 March, 1928, for an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He says in para. 6 that he entered upon his duties as trustee, and communicated with Bava C. Yaithyalinga Mudaliar, the petitioner, to co operate with him in the management From the petitioner it is clear that the respondent did not take possession of any property belonging to the Ulthuraikattalai nor was he in possession of anything that belonged to the kattalai.

(2.) Mr. Visvanatha Sastri for the respondent contends that he did not enter upon his office, that possession need not be necessarily physical possession of the kattalai properties and that the respondent may be deemed to be in possession of the office.

(3.) The mere appointment of a person in office cannot give him possession of the trust properties. The petitioner was in possession of the Ulthuraikattalai and the properties belonging thereto for at least two years. His possession ought not to have been interfered with by a Criminal Court.