Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. "It will be convenient to consider what powers the Board of Revenue and the Collectors possessed, or de facto exercised in relation to religious houses. The proceedings upon the accession of Venkatachellam, above described, took place before Regulation VII of 1817 was passed. But it is evident that before that Regulation the British Government, by virtue of its sovereign power, asserted, as the former rulers of the country had done, the right to visit endowments of this kind and to prevent and redress abuses in their management. There can be little doubt that this superintending authority was exercised by the old rulers... It appears, therefore, to be highly probable that the Setupatis in the days of their power exercised control over the pagoda, not, however, in virtue of any proprietary right of patronage, but as the rightful or de facto rulers of the district. The powers they enjoyed as sovereigns, whatever they may have been, have now passed to the British Government... That the new rulers, at an early date, exercised a controlling supervision and authority over the temples very clearly appears from a letter written in 1803 by the Board of Revenue to Mr. Hurdis, the Collector of Madura. It is abundantly clear from this letter that long before Regulation VII of 1817 the British Government not only assumed the power to superintend the management of the property and affairs of the pagodas throughout the Peninsula, but exercised its authority through the agency of the Collectors. The preamble of the Regulation of 1817, after stating that large endowments had been granted by former Governments as well as by the British Government and individuals for the support of temples, and that the produce of such endowments were in many instances misappropriated, declares it to be "the duty of the Government to provide that all such endowments be applied according to the real intent and will of the grantor." It then enacts that the general superintendence of all endowments should be vested in the Board of Revenue and prescribes the duties to be performed by them to prevent misappropriation of the funds. It also authorises the Board to appoint local agents, and declares that the Collector of the district shall be ex-officio one of such agents... [It is thus established that at an early date the power of superintendence was entrusted by the Government to the Board of Revenue and the Collectors. The Regulation, in fact, merely defined the manner in which that power was thenceforth to be exercised." Similar observations were made by this Court in an earlier case Ramiengar v. G. Pandarasannada 5 M. H.C.R. 53 at p. 57. The learned Judges, SCOTLAND, C.J., and INNES, J., say: "The duties of superintendence and the proper appropriation of the endowments of Hindu and Muhammadan temples and religious establishments, of the preservation of the structures of such temples and establishments, and of the management of their affairs, through trustees or managers, were without doubt, we believe, exercised by the officers of the Local Government indiscriminately long before theTanjore territory and temples were assumed by the Government, and in 1817 the general management of all endowments of religious establishments in this Presidency, as also the duty of seeing that the trustees or managers of such establishments were properly qualified and duly appointed were made without exception, a legal obligation on the Board of Revenue and their local agents by Regulation VII of that year." The complete powers thus entrusted to the Board of Revenue were henceforth exercised by them up to the year 1841, when, according to the judgment in the case just referred to (page 59) "the Government, it appears, became in 1841 strongly influenced by conscientious, moral and religious scruples, and considering that they were at liberty in their executive capacity to divest themselves of the duties and responsibilities imposed by law in connection with Hindu and Muhammadan religious establishments, they determined that all duties and trusts, excepting the management of lands attached thereto, should be left finally and completely in the hands of properly qualified individuals." Exhibit KK, in the present case, of the year 1841 is evidence of the fact just stated, namely, that the Government in that year resolved to relinquish all interference with native temples both in the internal arrangements thereof and the administration of their revenues, reserving to themselves only the managements of the lands endowed. It is therefore evident that, from the year 1817 up to 1841, the Board of Revenue had the fullest control over temple affairs including even the internal arrangements of the institutions. They exercised these powers over both classes of religious establishments as distinguished now in Sections s 3 and 4 of the Act XX of 1863. I quote again from the judgment in Ramiengar v. G. Pandarasannada 5 M.H.C.R. 53. at p. 57: "The recitals and enactments too of Act XX of 1863 show chat the two classes of temples and religious establishments described in Sections s 3 and 4, and the property belonging thereto, were, at the time of its passing, alike subject to the control of the Board of Revenue and their local agents in the performance of all the above duties, and it was the very purpose of the Act to provide differently for the future exercise of such duties, according as the nomination of the trustee, manager or superintendent of each temple or religious establishment bad or had not been ascertained to be a right possessed independently of the Government." So that the powers of the Board of Revenue under Regulation VII of 1817 which legally existed until the passing of Act XX of 1863 were continued to the temple committees formed under that Act in respect to all temples falling under Section 3, and were taken away only in regard to the temples falling under Section 4 That the Board of Revenue were deprived of some of their powers so far back as 1841 by the executive order of Government does not affect the position of the committees created under Act XX of 1863; because it is not the powers of the Board of Revenue as they existed at the time that the control of the temples was made over to the committees, that were conferred upon them but the powers of the Board of Revenue as they existed in 1817, and what those were have, I think, been sufficiently set forth. The plaintiff's case being one falling under Section 3, he cannot possibly claim exemption from control by the committee of his management which can only be claimed by trustees coming under Section 4. No case has been cited since the passing or Act, XX of 1863 in which exemption from such control has been established by a trustee appointed under Section 3 of the Act, and it is certain that it would never have been recognized. On the other hand, in the case of Virasami v. Subba I.L.R. 6 Mad. 54 we find an instance of a trustee who had submitted generally to the "authority, interference and supervision" of the committee. and a contention there similar to the one in the present suit that a trustee was only liable to render an account to the committee was overruled. If any further proof were wanted as to the all-reaching control vested in Government officers before the passing of the Act XX of 1863, it is to be found in Section 22 of the Act which prohibits officers of Government from thereafter undertaking or resuming the superintendence of any endowments, or taking part in the management or appropriation thereof or appointing trustees or being in any way concerned therewith. This is a clear indication that such were the powers which the officers of Government had been previously exercising and which thenceforth devolved on the temple committees. From what has been stated there cannot, I think, be a shadow of a doubt that in this case the committee were empowered to supervise and control the plaintiff in all his acts of management including the conduct of religious services. If, for instance the plaintiff was showing favour to "Vadagalai observances rather than to Tengalai, it was within the power of the committee to prevent him from doing so, this being admittedly a Tengalai temple, just as much as if it being a Vishnuvite temple he had introduced a Shivite form of worship therein, because he would have been appropriating the funds of the temple to a purpose foreign to the intention of the grant; and it is the duty of the committee to see to the due appropriation of the funds. Several complaints had reached the committee that the plaintiff' was introducing Vadagalai rituals, and if that was so, it was within their power to prevent it under the general powers of control which, in my opinion, they undoubtedly possess.

18. Holding then that the committee were empowered to pass the orders which they did, the next and last question is whether they properly exercised those powers in regard to the plaintiff. Those powers must be exercised in a reasonable and not in an arbitrary way as laid down in the case of Vijaya Ragava v. Secretary of State for India I.L.R. 7 Mad. 466. It would not be the committee's own view of what constituted misconduct that would justify their removal of the trustee, but only what would satisfy a Court of Equity that there was misconduct. On the other hand, in the case of a trustee it is not always necessary to establish actual misconduct against him before he can be removed. A trustee may be removed if the Court is satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed. The principle is stated by Lord BLACKBURN in Letterstedt v. Broers L.R. 9 App. Cas. 371 at p. 386 as follows: " and therefore though it should appear that the charges of misconduct were either not made out or were greatly exaggerated, so that the trustee was justified in resisting them and the Court might consider them in awarding costs, yet if satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed, the trustee might be removed. It must always be borne in mind that trustees exist for the benefit of those to whom the creator of the trust has given the trust estate." The grounds on which the majority of the committee issued their first order suspending the plaintiff are to be found in Exhibit N. They are (1) that he owed his appointment to the favour of one committee member, his cousin, the fifth defendant, and to the fear of another, the Chetti who has since died, the charge on the latter head being that the plaintiff had taken civil process out against the Chetti to intimidate him, (2) that since his appointment he had caused loss of property and money to the temple, and (3) that he had conducted things in the temple contrary to custom so as to cause a disturbance of the peace between the Tengalais and the Vadagalais, and that some of. his irregular acts were disrespectful to the god. It is urged on the plaintiff's behalf that none of these grounds was a good one and that the order was actuated by personal ill-will against the plaintiff. Premising that, unlike in an order for dismissal, the grounds for suspension pending an inquiry do not need to be actually proved, and that it is sufficient if there are prima facie grounds for action, I observe that the committee had before them several long and detailed complaints of mismanagement on the part of the plaintiff, and I must say that if they believed in the genuineness of those complaints they had ample reasons for suspending the plaintiff pending inquiry. I do not refer to the first ground which they have given in their order, because I think that that was not a proper ground for suspension, as the plaintiff. had been in office for seven or eight months during which time he had been acknowledged by the committee as the manager. But in respect to the grounds (2) and (3) there were apparently genuine complaints of actual malversation and of malfeasance and nonfeasance. It is urged that, as regards the ground No. 2, the committee had no reason for believing that there had been any malversation and that as regards the ground No. 3 of general mismanagement the committee had no power of interference with the internal arrangements of the temple. It is also said that it was no part of the business of the committee to prevent a breach of the peace. However, 1 consider that they had a concern in both matters in the preservation of the peace and in the conduct of affairs in the temple, as they certainly had in regard to the malversation, if any, of the funds. One particular fact must be borne in mind, and that is that there had been no manager of the Vadagalai sect since 1881, and that in the time of the previous Vadagalai manager there had been serious rioting. There had also been a disturbance in the temple soon after the plaintiff took charge in regard to his conduct of the Tidal festival in which the interference of the magistracy was invoked, and at the very time when the order of suspension was passed there was another important festival going on. So that the only question is, did the committee proceed in the bond fide belief that they were acting for the good of the temple in suspending the plaintiff when they did; for I think that a Court of justice would have acted in the same way on the same materials if there was reason to believe that they were true. I agree with the District Judge in thinking that the three members of the committee who signed the order Exhibit N were not actuated by dishonest motives or personal ill-will against the plaintiff. It is not alleged that the third defendant, one of the signatories now deceased, had any personal spite against the plaintiff, and this to begin with is a very material point in favour of the bond fides of the order. The circumstances relied on as showing a personal animus against the plaintiff on the part of the other two committee members are not, in my opinion, sufficient to prove it. In regard to the first defendant, all that is shown is that he had had a difference of opinion with the fifth defendant respecting the dismissal of the trustees of another temple, the Lalgudi temple, and it is said that in consequence of that he had threatened the fifth defendant to do harm to his cousin, the plaintiff. As it is a fact that the first defendant had protested against the appointment of the plaintiff from the outset, I do not see how any subsequent dispute between him and the fifth defendant could have been the cause of the first defendant's objection to the plaintiff. That objection was never disguised, and I think the first defendant is entitled to be credited with honesty in his objection to the plaintiff's appointment and management. It was mainly on the ground that he was a Vadagalai and therefore not fit to manage this Tengalai temple; and there was no odium theologicum on the first defendant's part, for be is neither a Tengalai nor a Vadagalai but a Shivite. I believe, therefore, that it was on public grounds that he objected to the plaintiff's appointment at first and afterwards ordered his suspension when he found that the appointment had actually led, as he thought it would, to mischievous results.

27. Sankaran Nayar--The property is that of the idol not of the trustee, and the interest of the temple not of the trustee, is to be preserved, see Maharanee Shibessouree Debia v. Mothooranath Acharjo 13 M.I.A. 270 at p. 273 and Letterstedt v. Broers L.R. 9 A. pp. Cas. 371 as to the removal of a trustee. [SHEPHARD, J.: He can be removed, of course, but a strong case must be made out, so it has always been held in these cases.] The interest of the temple is the main thing to be observed. [COLLINS, C J.--But here he has been declared not to have been properly dismissed. He is now the trustee of the temple.] The Regulation gave no new power to the Board of Revenue Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Pillai L.R. 1 I.A. 209 at p. 235. but only regulated and defined existing powers already vested in the Board. Moreover, the extent of the powers is not to be gauged by Section 22 which is negative. Section 3 governs this temple. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are immaterial except for the fact that Section 6 refers to trustees as managers of these temples; then comes Section 7 as to the constitution and duties of committees. Section 8 relates to the qualification of committee-men; Section 9 to the tenure of office; Section 10 to vacancies in the office. Then Section 12 gives the committee powers over the temple and the property. [DAVIES, J.--This temple has no land but only a money income.] But the point is that it is not only the endowment as distinct from temple that is concerned, but the committee has power over the temple. [SHEPHARD, J.--The Board of Revenue had not the jewels.] That was so in a sense, but there was no one else to hold them except the Government peishkar. The case of Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Pillai L.R. 11. A. 209 at p. 235 is on the facts ad rem--there there was a temporary injunction or suspension by the Collector of a newly-appointed trustee for one year. The argument was that the Collector was acting as agent of the zamindar. The Privy Council said no, but acting as Collector under the powers which existed before the Regulation. The Regulation does not limit the rights of the Collector, but prescribes how they are to be exercised. All the acts complained of in the present case were such as involved the use of temple property and the employ of the temple servants. [SHEPHARD, J.--Can you read Exhibit N and say that the committee had the interest of the temple primarily in their minds?J The matter is alleged at the outset--it is said he has occasioned loss, and also they allege misuse which suffices to bring it within the Section. As to trustees of this temple, there is no reference to any trustee or manager in the early records; the Collector was in direct management. [.SHEPHARD, J.--You say the position of affairs was as in 1841 except that the committee is in the place of Collector.] Yes, under Sections 7 and 12 except for Section 11. [SHEPHARD, J.--You say the decision that a committee cannot hold property is wrong.) Yes, if it is necessary I am prepared to show that. [SHEPHARD, J.-- Section 11 is important as recognizing a trustee apart from the committee.] The trustee took the place of the local agent not of the Board. The place of the Board was taken by the committee. It was Board and Collector till 184.1, the Board and manager till 1863. The Board could remove the manager at any time unless they were precluded by the deed of appointment. In 1842 four stalathars were appointed hereditarily, and the trustees kept under control of the Board. As to the argument with reference to the suits, the Collector and any manager defacto could sue. The argument about suits and the ownership of the property falls to the ground if it is remembered that the idol is the owner, and suits are brought for it. See Queen-Empress v. Muttusami Pillai Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1895 (unreported) where COLLINS, C.J., and PARKER, J., say: " The Devastanam committee appointed under Act XX of 1863 exercise the same powers of supervision that were formerly exercised by the Board of Revenue under Regulation VII of 1817, but the property of the temple is not vested in them, nor do they represent the property. The person who represents the property is the trustee or manager, who is indeed appointed, and may, no doubt, be removed by the committee for sufficient cause. But the trustee or manager is not in the position of a clerk or servant removable at the pleasure of the committee. He holds his office permanently, though subject to removal for misconduct. It was held in Ponduranga v. Nagappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 366 that the members of a devastanam committee were not entitled as against the trustee or manager to be put in possession of the property of the temple or to the receipt of its income. The right view appears to be that the deity is regarded as the owner of the temple property, and the trustee or the manager appointed by the committee is the agent of the deity subject to the committee's control." The manager is an agent of the idol only subject to the committee's control. Where the action of the committee is in question, it has to be considered whether it is against the interest of the idol in the particular circumstances. As to the decision in Chinna Rangaiyangar v. Subbraya Mudali 3 M.H.C.R. 334, it shows that powers to dismiss and suspend are all traceable to the express powers of general superintendence, and must be judged as any other act of general superintendence is to be judged. So the powers are not to be construed as statutory powers. Were it so, it might be that power to dismiss would not include power to suspend. In Natesa v. Ganapti I.L.R. 14 Mad. 103 if there had not been so many trustees the case would have been different, and the result might have been different. Before the case of Chinna Rangaiyangar v. Subbraya Mudali 3 M.H.C.R. 334 the Sudder Court first held that Civil Courts had no power as to dismissal, only the Board [Daseekamiengar v. Singamiengar Sudder Adalat Decisions of 1857 p. 5. see also the decision in Kassyvassy Kistna Putter v. Vangala Shangaranat Josser Sudder Adalat Decisions of 1858 p. 39. The High Court said: We will not go so far as that, but will allow the person dismissed to go to Court after dismissal. The second Sudder case quoted above took the middle course and said that the person aggrieved might go either to the Board of Revenue or to the Court. This explains Chinna Rangaiyangar v. Subbraya Mudali 3 M.H.C.R. 334 which does not rule that any new rights (not enjoyed by the Board of Revenue) were given by Act XX of 1863 to the committee. Page 76 of Book III gives the history between 1841 and 1863. See Venkatasa Naidu v. Sadagopasami Iyer 4 M.H.C.R. 404 at p. 408 and Jusagheri Gosamiar v. The Collector of Tanjore 5 M.H.C.R. 334 at p. 341. This Srirangam temple is admittedly under Section 3 of Act XX of 1863. Section 7 of the Act embodies Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Regulation, but that presupposes a vacancy, i.e., a previous manager's superintendence. What was to be done where as here there was none such? Clearly the Board could appoint, not therefore under the Section, but under its general powers of superintendence. Barton v. Taylor L.R. 11 App. Cas. 197 quoted on the other side helps me, because it recognises the distinction between suspension and dismissal: but it held that although there were no rules the power was not to be used further than necessary. [ SHEPHARD, J.--It was said it could not be done punitively but by way of self-defence. I My contention is that the suspension was necessary in the interests of the trust. It is to be noted also that there the person suspended was not a subordinate, but an equal member of the assembly. As to punitive suspension Natesa v. Ganapati I.L.R. 14 Mad. 103 shows it is legal under this Act to suspend or dismiss. Compare also District Municipalities Act IV of 1884, Section 42; Local Boards Act V of 1884, Section 45; Civil Courts Act, Section 18; the Enquiry into offences of public servants, Act XXXVII of 1850, Section 25, and Legal Practitioners Act XVIII of 1879, Section 14. The committee can be the trustees, see Section 12 of Act XX of 1863; they are not always the only trustee Ponduranga v. Nagappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 366 but see Ramiengar v. G. Pandarasannada 5 M.H.C.R. 53 which says that Section 4 refers to cases where the right of management is shown and not only actual possession and management. The case of Vijaya Ragava v. Secretary of State for India I.L.R. 7 Mad. 466 does not apply; there there was no question of general superintendence, and no question of a subordinate, but the question related to a statutory power, and in such a case suspension is unnecessary, because the councillor has no executive function, and there was no obstruction. [DAVIES, J.--Also that was only an appointment for a term. I As to the evidence--can this bench go into evidence? or only into the point of law referred? See Section 575, Civil Procedure Code.

34. This is one of those frequent disputes between the worshippers of Vishnu--calling themselves, respectively, Vadagalais and Tengalais--and it arose in this wise;--there was a vacancy in the office of trustee of the Srirangam temple, and on the 1st of May 1892 the plaintiff was elected by a majority of the then existing committee permanent trustee and manager of the temple. The temple is not a purely Tengalai temple (see Acting District Judge's proceedings), although the majority of the worshippers as well as the officials are undoubtedly Tengalais--the plaintiff was a Vadagalai. Sometime after the plaintiff was appointed some vacancies in the committee were filled up, and the majority of that body were Tengalais. As might be expected, petitions were at once presented against the plaintiff. He was charged with having obtained the office of trustee by fraudulent or improper means--that he unduly favoured his relative, the fifth defendant,--and that in the matter of ritual and the observance of the ceremonies he had not observed the usual customs, had used the revenues of the temple improperly and by various means had outraged the feelings of the Tengalai sect. These charges against the plaintiff were, if true, sufficiently serious to justify the committee in holding an enquiry.