Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. At this temple, it has been customary to have two trustees or dharmakartas, one appointed from the interested community, the Poonamalle Ooyarthuluva Vellala community and one from the members of the family of the founder of the temple. Prior to the month of April 1934, the two trustees of the temple were the first plaintiff and M.N.A. Annamalai Mudaliar. In that month, the latter trustee died. The first plaintiff represented the above community and at the date of the death of the deceased trustee there was no one available amongst the members of the founder's family for appointment as a trustee to fill the vacancy. At this period, the second plaintiff was a member of the Committee. Under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, a member of the Committee is incapable of being or acting as a trustee of any temple under the superintendence of the Committee. A meeting of the Committee was held on 28th April, 1934, and the second plaintiff, having resigned from membership of the Committee, he was thereupon appointed as an interim dharmakarta. From that date, the plaintiffs functioned as trustees of the temple. At this temple, there is an office of overseer,' and this appointment would seem to be peculiar to this temple.

21. Although the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 6th May, 1935, regarding the appointment of the twelfth defendant as interim trustee, do not state that he was to act in the place of the second plaintiff, it is obvious he was so appointed. As I am satisfied that the second plaintiff's dismissal was irregular and invalid, it must follow that the Committee has no power to appoint any person in his place. Whilst the Act does not limit the number of trustees to be appointed in respect of any temple, as far as the information before me goes, there never has been more than two trustees for this temple. Further, the twelfth defendant was appointed by the same meeting as that which dismissed the second plaintiff. No notice was given that a subject of that meeting was the appointment of a new trustee, nor was this a subject upon the agenda of the meeting. For the reasons I have given and following the Bench decision in Rama Aiyar v. Sivagnanam Pillai (1927) 54 M.L.J. 140 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 68, the appointment of the twelfth defendant as trustee was invalid. When the suspension of a trustee of a temple was illegal, a declaration to that effect was granted in Venkata Narayana Pillai v. Ponnuswami Nadar (1917) 33 M.L.J. 660 : I.L.R. 41 Mad. 357. See Wallis, C.J., at page 365. The power of suspension by a Committee is the same as the power of dismissal. See Seshadri Aiyangar v. Nataraja Aiyar (1898) I.L.R. 21 Mad. 179, Collins, C.J., at page 221. The second plaintiff having been illegally dismissed, he is entitled to relief in the suit.