LAWS(PVC)-1939-10-50

SIR K C MANAVIKRAMAN, ZAMORIN RAJA AVERGAL OF CALICUT, TRUSTEE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM Vs. MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD

Decided On October 11, 1939
SIR K C MANAVIKRAMAN, ZAMORIN RAJA AVERGAL OF CALICUT, TRUSTEE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM Appellant
V/S
MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit raises certain important questions as to the power of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board to start notification proceedings under Chap. 6-A of Madras Act 2 of 1927, as amended by Act 12 of 1935, in cases where schemes have been settled by the Civil Courts in suits to which the Board was a party. The plaintiff in this case is the Zamorin of Calicut, who is one of the trustees of the famous temple of Guruvayur situated in South Malabar. Defendant 1 is. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and defendant 2, Malliserri Nambudiri, is a joint trustee along with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the chief trustee and is in charge of the affairs of the temple. This suit is filed to have it declared that the proceedings which defendant 1 started under Section 65-A(1) of Madras Act 2 of 1927, as amended by Madras Act 12 of 1935, are without jurisdiction and void and that the Board has no right to go on with the enquiry. The chief contesting defendant is defendant 1. Defendant 2 supports the plaintiff's case.

(2.) The plaintiff's case may be briefly stated thus: The Zamorin of Calicut and his predecessors have been the hereditary trustees of the suit temple and of various other temples situated in that part of the country. The Court of Wards were in sole management of the temple between the years 1914 and 1927. In 1927, the Court of Wards handed back to the then Zamorin the management of the suit temple. After the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act was passed, a scheme was framed by the Board under Secs.62 and 63 of the Act on 3 November 1928, by which the Zamorin was constituted the sole trustee. Thereupon, defendant 2 filed C.S. No. 1 of 1929 on the file of the District Court of South Malabar to have the scheme modified; certain worshippers of the temple filed another suit, C.S. No. 2 of 1929, for the same purpose; and the two suits were tried and heard together. In a common judgment, the District Court of South Malabar framed a scheme; the matter was taken up on appeal, A.S. Nos. 211 of 1930 and 212 of 1930 on the file of this Court, and by its judgment dated 218t November 1930 this Court held that plaintiff and defendant 2 were joint trustees and modified the District Judge's scheme in important matters. In particular this Court gave the right of appointing a manager for the suit temple to the trustees of the temple and provided for the appointment of a cashier.

(3.) Not content with the scheme framed by the High Court, a suit was filed by certain worshippers in O.S. No. 1 of 1933 on the file of the District Court of South Malabar making the plaintiff, defendant 1 and defendant 2 all defendants. The suit was contested by all of them; in particular defendant 1 filed a written statement and took a leading part in the trial of the suit, and the District Court after considering all the circumstances of the case and having considered the various pleas and arguments and the suggestions put forward by the various parties framed a scheme by its final decree dated 10 September 1938. All the parties acquiesced in the said judgment, filed no appeal and allowed the judgment to become conclusive. Having allowed the District Judge's judgment to become final defendant 1 Board started notification proceedings by its notice dated 19 December 1938 issued under Section 65-A(1) of the Act. The various reasons given in the notice issued by the Board under the above Section are not available to the Board for the reason that most of them were actually put forward by the Board in the various litigations to which it was a party and the Courts adjudicated upon them after hearing the Board, rejecting some of those contentions. Therefore the Board is precluded from relying upon those very grounds as the basis for starting notification proceedings under Chap. 6-A of the Act. Reasons 1, 3, 5 and 6 mentioned in the notice were adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts in the litigations to which the Board was a party and the other reasons 2, 4 and 7 were never even mentioned by the Board before the Civil Courts for the obvious reason that there is absolutely no substance in them. No sort of mismanagement is even alleged against the present trustees and not one of the reasons mentioned in the notice refers to anything that transpired after the decree of the High Court passed in November 1930 or of the District Court passed in September 1938. Without giving a fair trial to the scheme framed by the District Court in, the suit to which defendant 1 was a party and without seeing whether the scheme would work well or not, the Board has no right to start proceedings which is a deliberate attempt to set at naught the findings of the High Court and of the District Court in suits to which it was a party and this is a contrivance to get behind the decrees and circumvent the decision of the Civil Courts. In any event, the Board is not entitled to rely upon any of the grounds which were adjudicated upon adversely to it by the Civil Courts.