AMBALAVANA THAMBIRAN Vs. VAGEESAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A. and C.R.P. are against the order of the lower Court dismissing an application presented under a scheme decree in A.A. Order 218 of 1925 on the file of the High Court. Under Rule 2 in that scheme, which was for the management of the Anjukoil Devasthanam, it is declared that when a vacancy occurs in the trusteeship: the Pandara Sannadhi for the time being of Thiruvannamalai mutt shall be appointed trustee unless the District Court of Ramnad for any valid reason decides him to be unfit.

(2.) The late Pandara Sannadhi who was the trustee died on 10 June 1928. The petitioners applied under this rule on 25 June 1928: to the lower Court to declare respondent 1, who claimed to have succeeded as Pandara Sannadhi, to be unfit for appointment as trustee and to appoint either one of the petitioners or some other proper person to be trustee and for other reliefs. The District Judge dismissed the application, holding that Rule 2 of the scheme is ultra vires and the petitioners came up by way of appeal and revision. It is conceded that no appeal lies and the case has been argued as one in revision.

(3.) In the lower Court it was alleged by the petitioners, inter alia, that respondent 1 has not been lawfully appointed as Pandara Sannadhi and therefore was unfit to be a trustee. But the argument before us has proceeded on the footing that he is the Pandara Sannadhi de facto, entitled, if Rule 2 is not ultra vires, to be appointed as trustee unless otherwise found unfit, and it is urged that the petition should be reopened for enquiry as to his fitness. The respondents maintain that (1) the rule itself is ultra vires, (2) that even if it is intra vires the petitioners under the scheme have no locus standi to apply. A third point viz., that the High Court had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme at all was not pressed here.