Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. There is an ancient temple called Sri Tiyagaraja Swami temple in the town of Tiruvalur in the Negapatam taluk of the district of Tanjore. Respondents are its 'panchayatdars' or managers, and appellants are trustees of two of the 'katlais' attached thereto called Abhisheka Katlai and Rajan alias Saba Katlai. In ordinary parlance, the term 'katlai,' as applied to temple endowments, signifies a special endowment for certain specific service or religious charity in the temple. Ardajama Katlai or endowment for midnight service is an instance of the former, and Annadana Katlai or an endowment for distributing gratis food to the poor is an example of the latter. In this sense, the word 'katlai' is used in contradistinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. In the case of some important temples, the sources of their income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance; each endowment is placed under a separate trustee, and specific items of expenditure are assigned to it as legitimate charges to be paid therefrom. Bach of such endowments is called also a katlai and the trustee who administers it is called the katlaigar or the stanik of the particular katlai. The term 'katlai' is used in the present suit in this sense and Exhibit R enumerates the several katlais that exist in connection with the temple at Tiruvalur together with their average income from fasli 1221 to Fasli 1228. When the institution was under the immediate control of officers of the Government, it appears from that exhibit that 'Abhisheka Katlai' under first appellant's management had an average income per year of 8,734 pons, 2 3/8 fanams or Rs. 13,647-3-11, and that Rajan Katlai and Annadana Katlai, which are under second appellant's management, yielded an annual income of 10,208 pons, 9 fanams or Rs. 15,951-6-6, while the 'Ulthurai Katlai', which is under the direct management of the panchayatdars, produced an income of pons 6,247 or Rs. 9,760-15-0. It is these four katlais that are important, the other katlais having only small endowments whose average income is not likely to be in excess of their current expenses. The contest in this suit is as to appellants' liability to provide from the endowments in their charge for the necessary repairs of the temple and of the large tank outside called Kamalalayam which is attached to it,

7. Moreover, Exhibit Y shows that in 1849 the Collector sanctioned the expenditure of Rs. 10,000 upon repairs on applications and estimates submitted by the katlaigavs. Though, as argued by appellants' pleader, the exhibit does not mention the names of the katlaigars, yet it is material in so far as sanction is sought for laying out the income of katlais on repairs.

8. It appears further from Exhibit D that so recently as 1886 the trustee of the Abhisheka Katlai corresponded with the Deputy Tahsildar of Tiruvalur acting on behalf of Ulthurai Katlai on the subject of certain repairs.

10. On the other hand, our attention is drawn to certain facts by appellants' pleader as favouring their contention. The first fact to which reference is made is the preparation in 1820 of a new dittam or 'standing budget estimate' under the order of the Collector of Tanjore who then exercised control over the management of Hindu temples in the district. By Exhibit T he directed that the various sources of income should be estimated and that 20 per cent, should be deducted therefrom and kept as a reserve fund for meeting loss from floods, from withering of crops, from high prices and other unlooked-for causes and observed that, even if there were no such loss, the reserve fund was needed for the purpose of repairing the temples and preserving them in the same condition. Exhibits N1, O1, P and R enumerate the several sources of income for the three principal katlais and for the whole temple including all the katlais and the 20 per cent, deduction is entered against all sources of income except the mohini allowance paid by Government for the daily and festival expenses of the temple. In Exhibit 01, which is the dittam account for the Abhisheka Katlai, there is an entry under the head of extra expenses in the column of remarks "cost of repairs not included in the new dittam. Hence the decrease." This is referred to on respondents' behalf as suggesting the inference that, prior to the preparation of the new dittam account, such cost formed part of the old dittam of the katlai. However this may be, these exhibits do not throw light on the ancient usage of the temple before us. The constitution of a reserve fund such as was suggested by the Collector might be an administrative improvement conducive to beneficial management. Under what authority the Collector issued the order T in regard to trust properties is not clear. It had no especial reference to the temple at Tiruvalur nor was its primary object to create a fund for repairs or to supersede any pre-existing obligation in that respect. There is further no evidence to show that a reserve fund was so constituted and since kept up. It is indeed suggested that it was not so kept up and the absence of allusion to it in the later accounts of 1830 favours the suggestion. It is noteworthy that appellants did not refer to any such fund in their written statements, or say that repairs were to be made from that fund; their case being that the katlais in their charge were not responsible for undertaking temple repairs and not that they as well as the other katlais were bound to meet the cost of repairs in proportion to the income. The contention, therefore, that the exhibits now under consideration negative appellants' liability appears to be an afterthought.