AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.—The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Appellants, the hereditary poojaris of
Sri Muthumariamman temple at Konniyur have also got vested in them rights as hereditary trustees. SRINIVASAN, J., from whose judgment this
appeal arises answered that question in the negative affirming the view taken by the lower Court. Konniyur where the temple in question is situate,
was part of the princely State of Pudukottai. That State owned several temples and it is not disputed that Sri Muthu-mariamman temple also
belonged to it. Exhibit B-4 the Pudukottai Gazette issued on 15th November 1939, gives a list of the temples in the State together with particulars
regarding persons in management of the same, etc. That shows that the temple in question was owned by the State of Pudukottai. Volume 1 of the
Manual of the Pudukottai State gives an account of the Devasthanam charities in the state. At page 465 it is stated:
Private persons sometimes claimed that the management of certain temples should be transferred to their hands and this was sometime done.
Again at page 471 in the same volume a list of the several temples under the direct control of the State and certain other institutions entrusted to
private persons is given. It is not the case of the Appellant that this temple was handed over to them for management. Indeed there is a list of
temples, in the book to which we have just now made reference which were entrusted to private management for a particular period of time. The
temple in question is not one among them. It can, therefore, be taken as proved beyond doubt that the ownership of the temple vested in the State.
That fact would by itself negative the contention that the trusteeship thereof vested in an outside agency unless it be proved that the State had
vested the trusteeship in such person. It is, however, argued on behalf of the Appellants that in as much as for a long period of time the custody of
jewels belonging to the temple and the day to day administration of the temple had remained with the poojaris, a lawful origin for this usage must be
assumed and the poojaris should be regarded as the trustees of the temple. Reference was also made to the fact that on a particular occasion the
Appellants performed kumbabishekam of the temple by collecting subscriptions from the public. But these circumstances in our opinion, are quite
inadequate to show that the poojaris were also functioning as trustees of the temple. It is in evidence that the State administration was having a
close control over the poojaris in the conduct of worship. A hundial is kept within the temple precincts and large amounts are collected through this
hundial from the worshippers. These hundial collections were never allowed to be handled by the poojaris, they were taken by the State and
utilised for the benefit of the institution. Here again it was the State which fixed dhittam or the scale of expenditure for the temple. Exhibits B-7 to
B-14 show that the State was closely supervising even the ordinary acts of management of the institution. On the occasion of the kumbabishekam
referred to earlier, the poojaris who arranged for the same, obtained the permission of the State for such celebration. It is true that the poojaris
collected monies for this purpose. But that circumstances cannot be of much significance particularly when we know that public help is general
sought for such purposes which are regarded as rightly meritorious, from the point of view of Hindus.
Mr. R. Rajagopala Iyer appearing for the Appellants invited our attention to certain provisions of the Pudukottai Regulations, namely, Regulation
VII of 1912. The preamble to the regulation sets out the necessity for control and supervision of religious institutions in the State. Section 2 thereof
states:
The general superintendence of all endowments in land or money granted for the support of religious charitable or educational institutions or for
other pious and beneficial purposes shall vest in the State Council.
Section 6 states that where the trustee or manager or superintendent of any institution does not discharge his duties properly the State Council
can remove him and appoint another.
It is contended that the control which the State exercised over the temple are referable to this undoubted controlling jurisdiction which the State
had in regard to management of the temples and other charitable institutions: and that they cannot be regarded as affording cogent evidence of the
State continuing as the perpetual founder of the institution, and controlling its affairs. We are, however, unable to draw much assistance from the
Regulation (referred to which is of a comprehensive character applying not only to religious institutions owned by the State but also to other
privately endowed institutions. The fact that powers of supervision are vested in the State by means of statutory provisions in regard to institutions
mentioned cannot mean that previous to the enactment the State had divested itself of the ownership of these temple which it had. But considerable
reliance has been placed by Mr. Rajagopala Iyer on a grant made to the poojaris in the instant case for their services, and for the conduct of
worship in the temple generally; learned Counsel also relied on the fact that the poojaris had made sub-grants of properties granted to them to the
other service-holders in the temple. Exhibit A-14 is a title deed given to an ancestor of the Appellants by the Dewan of Pudukkottai, that is, dated
12th November 1895. This document says that Rupees two hundred should be spent per year for the daily trikalam puja in the temple and if the
services are not kept up the Government would be entitled to intervene in the matter. There can be little doubt that in regard to the balance of the
income from the properties granted, which covered an extent of nearly three velis of lands the grantee should take it for his service as well as for
the service of other persons in the temple. Exhibit A-15 is a copy of Faisal Register-Inam lands, Konniyur village. That refers to the fact that the
lands which formed the subject-matter of the grant above�stated were endowed for the performance of daily worship and festivals, etc. This
document does in a sense support the contention now urged on behalf of the Appellants that as the grant expects the grantee and his heirs to spend
out of the income from the lands for the purpose of daily worships, etc., he should be regarded as the trustee of the temple. If exhibits A-14 and
A-15 are the only evidence available in the case, one will be justified in coming to the conclusion that the poojari was intended to be the trustee of
the institution as well. But we have other evidence in the case which unmistakably show that the State never intended to part with its own right of
management of the institution. At best the grant under exhibit A-14 can be regarded as making the grantee liable as a special trustee for the limited
purpose of realising the income from the lands and utilising the same for the purposes mentioned therein. In regard to other matters of management
it is the Government that will be the superior or the general trustee as it was in the position the founder-owner of the institution. We are, therefore,
in agreement with the learned Judge that the Appellants who are the hereditary poojaris of the temple and who as we have just now said are in the
position of special trustees, in regard to the properties endowed under exhibit A-14, are not the hereditary trustees of the temple in question. The
appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.