Ganapathi Ayyar And Ors. vs Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar And Ors. on 16 March, 1906
Even in Ganapatthi Ayyar v. Sri Vadanyasa Alasinga Bhattar 29 M. 534; 16 M.L.J. 435; 1 M.L.T. 127 Sir S. Subramania Ayyar, J., says that such appointments can be made for good and sufficient cause. I infer the power to appoint additional trustees from Sections 12 and 13 read with Section 2. It is not necessary in this case to consider the exact nature of the rights conferred on the Committees by Section 2: whatever may be involved in the term superintendence, I am of opinion that some of the decisions of this Court to which I shall refer later on have not been shown to be wrong in placing a limit on its import. Further, the right of superintendence must be limited to the exercise of the powers conferred on the Board or on the Committee whose jurisdiction is analogous to that of the visitor in England. Sections 3 to 10 do not call for special notice. Sections 11 to 13 are important. Section 11 requires local agents to report to the Board vacancies and casualties, the names of the persons claiming to be trustees and the mode in which previous appointments were made. Section 12 deals with cases in which the Government had the exclusive power of appointment and requires the local agent to suggest names. The 13th section deals with the duties of the Board on the receipt of such reports. It seems to me that the clause or made such other provision for the trust, etc." should be confined to the appointment contemplated in Sections 11 and 12. As I said before, they do not seem to warrant the construction that the Board can appoint hereditary trustees by virtue of this clause so as to deprive themselves of all control over them. Section 14 gives a right of suit to persons aggrieved by the exercise of the powers vested in the Board.