Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is necessary to consider One of these decisions more particularly, as the contention has been raised for the 1st plaintiff that the Temple Committee has no power over the Srirangam Devasthanam, because at the coming into force of the Act of 1863 one of the trustees under an arrangement made by the Board of Revenue had become hereditary as heldHn Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534. That one trusteeship is hereditary is no doubt res judicata as between the Committee and the hereditary trustee by reason of that decision. Mr. T.V. Venkatrama Aiyar who appeared for the Committee stated that there is evidence to show that the Board never appointed any hereditary trustee, and alleged that they had no power to do so in the exercise of the statutory authority under Section 13 of the Regulation. This was apparently the opinion of Sir Charles Turner in Appasami v. Nagappa (1884) I.L.R. 7 M. 499 at p. 509, though the opposite view was taken in L. Venkatesa Nayudu v. Shri Shadagopa Swami (1872) 7 M.H.C.R. 77, and followed in Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534. . As to this I will merely observe that Sheik Davud Saiba v. Hussein Saiba (1893) I.L.R. 17 M. 212, is no authority for the proposition for which it is cited in Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534, and Santhalva v. Manjanna Shetty (1910) I.L.R. 34 M. 1 that where the Board made one of the trusteeships hereditary, it deprived itself of authority to appoint additional trustees. The immediate question here is whether this Devasthanam is subject to the Temple Committee. It was not questioned in Seshadri Ayyangar v. Nataraja Aiyyar (1898) I.L.R. 21 M. 179 and Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534 that it is so subject, and it is admitted by the 1st plaintiff in his plaint in the present case. Further, it is I think clear that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1863 were introduced to cover all classes of cases, and even assuming that in 1863 one of the trustees was hereditary and the other two were nominated by the Temple Committee, I think the case comes under Clause 3 rather than under Clause 4. In any other view I should feel bound to consider whether the decision in Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri. Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534 can be supported.

7. The result is that the management will remain in the trustees subject to the statutory superintendence of the Temple Committee; and the proposed Board of Control must go. As regards the number of the trustees we think we may enable the Committee to do that which under the decision in Ganapathi Aiyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534 they can no longer do of themselves, viz., to appoint two additional trustees, but the nomination must be in the Committee pursuant to the statute. We may also provide that in future, trustees shall hold office for only 5 years. This, it is admitted, is one of the most urgent reforms, and the competency of the Committee to introduce it of them selves has been questioned. The proposed treasurer must also be disallowed as an independent officer, but we think it desirable that a paid officer of the trustees should be appointed to perform duties similar to those assigned to the treasurer but under the trustees. As regards finance we think it should, be the duty of the trustees to prepare a budget annually and submit it to the Committee under whose superintendence they are. We also think an audit should be insisted on. It has been arranged that the 1st plaintiff should submit a revised scheme or schemes on these lines in one month. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.

18. The preamble to the Regulation refers to the ground for believing that the produce of the endowments "is ill many instances appropriated contrary to the intentions of the donors," and speaks of the duty of the Government to see to its proper application. The duty, I lake it, is that of the parens patriae. In Duke of Beaufort v. Berty (1721) 1 P.W. 702 at p. 703 and 704, Lord Macclesfield, Lord Chancellor, says that the protection of children was assumed by the Court of Chancery in analogy of its powers over trusts. Consequently, the care of trusts seems to have been regarded as the first duty of the King. It was, therefore, very early held in Madras that the remedies under the regulation were not exhaustive but only supplementary of the ordinary remedies. Ponnambala Mudaliar v. Varaguna Rama Pandia Chinnatambiar (1872) 7 M.H.C.R. 117. See also Kassyvassy Kristna Putter v. Vangala Shangaranat Josser (1858) S.D.A. p. 39. I do not think that the view to the contrary held in Bhima Rout v. Dasarathi Dans (1912) I.L.R. 40 C. 323, is consistent with the history of the temple legislation in this country. I shall now deal with the other Sections of the Regulation. Section 2 is the most important of them. The right of general superintendence is wide enough to include the power to appoint additional trustees. I am in agreement with the decision in Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar v. Ponnappa Aiyangar (1914) 28 M.L.J. 209. Even in Ganapathi Aiyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534 S.C. 16 M.L.J. 435,. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar, J. says that such appointments can be made for good and sufficient cause. I infer the power to appoint additional trustees from Sections 12 and 13 read with. Section 2. It is not necessary in this case to consider the exact nature of the rights conferred on the Committees by Section 2 : whatever may be involved in the term superintendence, I am of opinion that some of the decisions of this Court to which I shall refer later on have not been shown to be wrong in placing a limit on its import. Further the right of superintendence must be limited to the exercise of the powers conferred on the Board or on the Committee whose jurisdiction is analogous to that of the visitor, in England. Sections 3 to 10 do not call for special notice. Sections 11 to 13 are important, Section 11 requires local agents to report to the Board vacancies and casualties, the names of the persons claiming to be trustees and the mode in which previous appointments were made. Section 12 deals with cases in which the Government had the exclusive power of appointment and requires the local agent to suggest names. The 13th Section deals with the duties of the Board on the receipt of such reports. It seems to me that the clause "or make such other provision for the trust, etc.," should be confined to the appointment contemplated in Sections 11 and 12. As 1 said before, they do not seem to warrant the construction that the Board can appoint hereditary trustees by virtue of this clause so as to deprive themselves of all control over them. Section 14 gives a right of suit to persons aggrieved by the exercise of the powers vested in the Board.

23. As a counterblast to the argument of Mr. Rangachariar Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar contended that as there is a hereditary Thengalai trustee there was no necessity for the appointment of another Thengalai trustee. The history of this institution shows that the hereditary Thengalai trustee is not a person on whom the Thengalais can rely to protect their interests. Undoubtedly the Thengalai rights are predominant in this temple; the Subordinate Judge was therefore right in providing for the appointment of an additional Theugalai trustee. No serious objection was taken by any of the contending parties for the inclusion in the Board of. Trustees of a Smartha and Madhwa. It is to be hoped that their presence would tend to compose the differences between the two rival sects of Vaishnavas. We do not think that the provision for the appointment of the Saivitc and Madhwa trustees by the Court is necessary. The Committee should have the same power with regard to them as they have with reference to the other three trustees. As regards Clause 12, in the view that we have taken about the office of the treasurer and having regard to the representations that have been made regarding the funds of the Devasthanam we are of opinion that instead of a treasurer, the trustees should be directed to appoint a cashier on a salary of Rs. 75-0-0 per mensem. Clause 1 which confers certain powers of supervision, and control on the treasurer should be modilied by investing the Board of Trustees with those powers. Clause 16 should be modified in a similar, manner. In addition to the provisious contained in the scheme we think it necessary that the, board of trustees should once a year prepare a balance sheet of the accounts of the Devasthanam and publish it for the information of the public in the local Gazette. The scheme should be modified as above indicated. As was done with reference to the Conjeevaram scheme we think liberty should be given to any of the trustees or any member of the Committee or to the 1st plaintiff in this case to move the Court for such alterations in the scheme as seem desirable in the light of the experience that may have been gained of its working.