Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Sivaji, the last Rajah of Tanjore, died in 1855. After his death the East India Company took possession not only of the Raj of Tanjore and the private properties of the late Rajah, but also certain pagodas and devasthanams which had been in his possession and management up to the date of his death. It was held by the Privy Council that the East India Company's usurpation of this property amounted to an act of State of which the ordinary Civil Courts could not take cognizance. Subsequently the Senior Rani Kamakshi Bai Saheba petitioned Government for a restoration of the estate and also of the devasthanams. The estate was restored by proceedings of the Madras Government, dated 21st August, 1862, which we have dealt with in another place. The order restoring the devasthanams was dated the 19th March, 1863.

3. Upon her death Government again took possession of the devasthanams and put them under the management of the Temple Committee of Tanjore. The next Senior Rani Umamba Bai brought a suit (O.S.No. 3 of 1894) for the recovery of these devasthanams and their endowments, basing her title on the fact that she was the Senior Rani and head of the family. She impleaded the Secretary of State for India, the members of the Tanjore and Kumbakonam Devasthanam Committees and the other Ranis as defendants in her suit. In a careful judgment, in which he set out the history of these institutions, Mr. Venkobachariar, then Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, came to the conclusion that the Government had no right to resume, or in any way interfere with, the management of the temples after granting them in favour of Kamakshi Bai, that they devolved as impartible property and that by the State grant restoring them Kamakshi Bai acquired heritable interestes in the properties. He decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour. There was an appeal to the High Court, which was heard by Shephard and Davies, JJ. Those learned Judges dismissed the appeal holding that the estate taken by the Senior Rani was in the nature of self-acquired property in her hands in the sense that her rights were derivative from Government and had no relation to inheritance on the death of the Rajah. They inferred from the fact that the plaintiff was chosen as the person to whom the trust should be made over in her capacity of widow of the late Rajah, that the intention of the Government was to grant her a widow's estate, that is, to put her in the position which she would have enjoyed had there been no confiscation on the death of her husband the Rajah.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

21. This appeal relates to the devasthanam known as the Fort or Palace Devasthanam and the endowments founded by the Rajahs of Tanjore and to the share of the plaintiffs in the immoveable properties described in the plaint which were purchased and enjoyed by the widows of Sivaji Maharajah who was the last Rajah of Tanjore. Claim is also made to the jewels and moveables left by the Ranis.

22. The plaintiffs and the 3rd and 4th defendants represent the illegitimate branch and the 1st and 2nd defendants are the grandsons of the late Sivaji Maharajah, the last ruler of Tanjore, being the sons of Serfoji who was adopted by Kamakshi Bai Saheba. The other defendants are alienees from one or other of the Ranis.

28. In dealing with the question of management of the trust property, I think the first question to be considered is the usage as regards the management prior to the death of Sivaji Maharajah, the last Ruler of Tanjore. There can be little doubt, and it is not seriously contended before us by the appellants, that this temple and the charities which were founded by the successive Rajahs of Tanjore were in the possession and management of the Rajah for the time being and that till the death of Sivaji the office was always held by a single individual. When the Raj was seized by the Government as an act of State, the pagodas and the devasthanams were also taken possession of and managed by the Government ; but they were not desirous of taking upon themselves the responsibility of managing the temple and the devasthanam properties. The Government at one time wanted that the devasthanams should be made over to Sakharam Saheb, the son-in-law of Sivaji Maharajah, as sole trustee. Sakharam Saheb had married the elder daughter of the late Maharajah and on her death he married the younger daughter. As, however, there were disputes between Sakharam Saheb on the one side and Kamakshi Bai Saheba on the other, this proposal was not given effect to. In 1860 there was an idea of transferring the management to Avu Bai Saheba, the late Rajah's mother, but she was not willing to assume management.After Kamakshi Bai Saheba got possession of the private properties of the Rajah, she claimed the restoration of the devasthanams and the endowments on the ground that they were vested in her husband and that she was the then head of the family. Her request was supported by the Government Agent and the outcome of it was the order of 1863 transferring the management to her. From 1863 till her death in 1892 she was the sole trustee and it was till then nobody's contention that the office of trustee could partake of the nature of private property and that each of the surviving Ranis was to have the management by turns and although the Receiver took possession of all the private properties, the trust properties were left in the possession and management of Kamakshi Bai Saheba. On her death the next senior Rani was, as the result of the suit which 1 have already referred to, put in possession and management and on the death of each senior Rani the junior succeeded. I am unable to find anything either in the Government order or in the surrounding circumstances which changed the usage prevailing as regards these institutions, namely, the management by a single individual who was the head of the family for the time being and which rendered it subject to all the incidents of partible property.