Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This suit was brought by Nagappa Mudaliar, a minor, through his guardian T. Vedadri Sadasa Mudaliar, against Annasami Ayyar and five others, the members of the Siva committee of the Tinnevelly District, to obtain a declaration that the [500] endowment of the Bhrantheiswara pagoda at Palamcottah is an hereditary trust, and that Nagappa Mudaliar is the hereditary trustee thereof, and in that character entitled to the sole management of the endowment. It was asserted in the plaint that the pagoda was built by Vengu Mudaliar, the great grandfather of the minor, who furnished it with idols, vahanams (vehicles), cars, etc., endowed it with lands, and procured for it a tasdik allowance from Government amounting to Rs. 2639-14-0 and constituted it an hereditary trust; that on the death of Vengu Mudaliar in 1829 the trust passed by succession to his son Gnanasigamani, who administered it till his death in 1845, when the trust descended to his son Vengu Mudaliar, the minor's father, who also administered it until his death in October 1881.

2. It was also alleged that the minor's father left a will whereby he appointed Vedadri Sadasa guardian of his son.

3. It was charged that the members of the Siva committee had in December 1881 appointed other trustees in the place of the minor's father, and had refused payment of the tasdik allowance to or on behalf of the minor. The members of the committee traversed the allegations that the temple was originally built by Vengu Mudaliar or that any hereditary right to the management of the temple had been acquired by or vested in the family of Vengu, and it was alleged that the temple was one of those to which the nomination of the dharmakarta vested in, and was exercised by, the Government at the time of the passing of Act XX of 1863. It was admitted that the alleged founder, Vengu Mudaliar, had restored, beautified and enlarged the temple, that he had furnished it with movable properties and had Dedicated lands for the support of religious services in connection with the temple, and that these properties and lands had been created by him an hereditary trust, of which the administration had been throughout exercised by his family. The members of the committee asserted no claim on behalf of themselves or of the persons appointed by them as dharmakartas to interfere with these endowments. On the other hand it was pleaded that the temple building, the tasdik allowances, and properties other than the endowments, had been throughout held by persons appointed or approved by the Government and afterwards by the committee, and that members of Vengu Mudaliar's family had from time to time, in virtue of such appointment, held the properties other than the endowments, but subject to the control of the Collector or of the committee.

9. The circumstance that a tasdik allowance was allotted to the temple argues that it was an ancient institution. These allowances were made by the Company's Government in lieu of lands with which temples had been endowed, but which had been resumed by the Muhammadan Government (Proceedings of Board of Revenue, 30th May 1842, Court Exhibit 3).

10. We have no definite information as to the condition of this temple at the time that Vengu Mudaliar first became connected with it.

11. With regard to another temple, then in ruins, dedicated to Ramasami, a document has been produced on appeal to show that in 1805 a tasdik allowance for this was given, as Vengu Mudaliar had undertaken the dharmakartaship. It may be that the tasdik allowance for the Branthiswara temple was paid under similiar circumstances. That Vengu became dharmakarta is not denied, and the payment of the tasdik allowance was then made. The appellants are justified in contending that there is nothing to show that Vengu. either claimed or was recognized as an hereditary trustee of the temple. When the trusteeship is hereditary, it is ordinarily described in Southern India as athina, and the trustee as athina-dharmakarta. In none of the official or private documents has this term been applied to Vengu or any of his successors.