Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The plaintiff was, as I have said, appointed trustee on the 1st May 1892 (Exhibit A), and he took charge of the office a few days afterwards. Nataraja Ayyar was not a party to the appointment, but he admits that he knew that the plaintiff was applying for the office and that he knew of the appointment a few days afterwards. He admits also that he did not object to the appointment when it was first mooted. The first occasion when he openly took exception to it was on the 6th June, which is the date of a memorandum stating his objections to the removal of the defendant, Krishna Ayyangar, from the office and the substitution in his place of the plaintiff. There is a suspicious delay about the making of the protest which is not accounted for by Nataraja. It appears that this Krishna Ayyangar had previously held the appointment and resigned it on the 31st May 1891, in consequence of complaints made against him. Subsequently, on the 16th April 1892, be was re-appointed, but his appointment was cancelled on the 29th of the same month and at the same time it was resolved to appoint the plaintiff. Nothing appears to have been done by the defendant Nataraja by way of following up his protest of 6th June. About the time of the plaintiff's appointment two persons--Dorasami and Ramasami--were appointed trustees of another temple, the Lalgudi temple, within the defendants' circle. In this matter there seems to have been a difference of opinion between Nataraja and his fellow committeeman Vasudeva, as there was in regard to the appointment of the plaintiff. Vasudeva says Nataraja urged him to join in the removal of these two trustees but that he refused. I think there can be no doubt that this is true, for Vasudeva's evidence is supported by the minutes written by him and Nataraja in July 1892, and it is not contradicted except in a very general way by Nataraja. It appears from these minutes that the dispute had begun before the 6th of June. The end of it was that the two Lalgudi trustees were dismissed on the very day on which the plaintiff was dismissed. On the 27th June 1892 the Chetti, who had been a party to the plaintiff's appointment, died, and so till the 20th October the committee consisted of two persons only, viz., the defendants, Nataraja and Vasudeva. In the interval and indeed for some time afterwards there can be no doubt that the plaintiff's position as trustee was unquestioned. As late as the 19th November 1892 there is a yadast signed by all five members of the committee designating the plaintiff and his colleagues as managers of the temple and entitled to receive the Mohini, All this time, however, while in public the plaintiff was duly recognized, there can be little doubt that Nataraja privately entertained the idea of ousting him from office. He was only waiting for a convenient opportunity. After the instalment of the new committee, the first measure adopted as regards the plaintiff appears to have been the writing of a minute by the new committeeman Krishna Ayyangar. This minute, dated the 21st December 1892, deals with the case of the Lalgudi trustees, and also with certain petitions in which complaints had been made against the plaintiff. The minute concludes with the recommendation that the plaintiff should be immediately suspended, the main ground being that he is a Vadagalai, whereas the temple is a Tengalai one, and that disturbances are likely to take place during the festival. The defendant Ramasami agrees with this minute. Two days later, on the 26th, the defendant Nataraja expresses his concurrence. In his minute for the first time for more than six months he revives the objections raised by him in his memorandum of 6th June to the plaintiff's appointment. The fourth member of the committee--Krishnamachari--demurs to the recommendation of Krishna Ayyangar and advises that, before any order is passed, the plaintiff should be asked to explain the matters alleged against him. His minute is dated the 27th December. What was done between that date and the 29th when the order of suspension was issued, does not clearly appear. All we know is that the fifth member Vasudeva says he knew nothing of the minutes of his colleagues, nor of the order until after the date when the latter was issued. I think we may fairly assume that the throe persons who signed the order were aware that Krishnamaehari objected. to it and advised delay and that the other defendant Vasudeva had never been consulted. I think we must also assume that the two defendants (for the defendant Ramasami Chetti is dead) approved of the terms in which the. order was drawn up. Now, what are the matters charged against the plaintiff in this order? There are four heads. There is first the charge that he obtained the office of trustee by improper means--that is the matter on which, as. already mentioned, Nataraja's minute dwells. Then there is the charge or causing loss of property and money to the devastanam. Next, there is the. charge of conducting temple affairs so as to cause riots between Tengalais and Vadagalais, and lastly there is the charge with reference to what is called the Tidal festival. I have already said that these charges, which are included in. those insisted upon by the respondents at the hearing, have not been established: by the evidence. We must take it that they are groundless charges, and consider whether Nataraja and Krishna Ayyangar took reasonable pains to ascertain, if they were true or whether they knew them to be groundless. The question was much discussed whether the matters mentioned in the order relating to the conduct of the festival were within the scope of the committee's. authority, the committee being primarily concerned to see only to the preservation and proper disposition of the temple property. In my opinion, having; regard to the language of the Act, the committee have no business to interfere in the internal management of the temple or in mere matters of ritual or ceremonial. Their interference with the trustee is unauthorized and improper save so far as it can be justified as necessary in discharge of the secular duties. which the Act imposes on the committee. In considering the conduct of the. committee, however, with reference to damages, I do not think this ought to be taken into account. I give the committee credit for being honestly mistaken, with regard to the scope of their duties.

32. The suit was brought in the District Court of Trichinopoly by the plaintiff--the permanent trustee of the Srirangam temple--against the temple committee of the said temple for suspending him from performing the duties of his office--claiming an injunction and also damages.

33. I have to consider two questions--firstly, has the committee power to suspend the trustee of the temple; and secondly, if the power exists, were the members of the committee justified under the circumstances in exercising the power?