K.P.R. Subbaraya Mudaliar and Others vs Nachimuthu Mudali and Others

Kailasam, J.—This petition is filed to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing delivery of possession of Sri

Kamakshiamman Periaveetukkaran Temple at Vadakupalayam in Sivagiri village, Erode taluk, Coimbatore District, to the Respondents, who were

appointed trustees of the said temple. The Petitioners claim that the temple is a denominational institution and that the lower Court was in error in

directing delivery of possession to the Respondents.

The Respondents were appointed trustees of the temple by the Area Committee of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem.

The Petitioners filed R.P. No. 18 of 1962 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras u/s 21 of Madras Act

XXII of 1959 for setting aside the appointment of the trustees. The petition was dismissed by the Commissioner on 19th March 1962. The

Respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1962 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode u/s 101 of Madras Act XXII of

1959 for delivery of the temple to them and by an order, dated 26th March. 1962, delivery was ordered. Meanwhile the Petitioners filed Writ

Petition No. 513 of 1962 to quash the order of the Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 18 of 1962 declining to interfere with the appointment

of the Respondents as trustees of the temple by the Area Committee. In the Writ Petition, the High Court ordered stay of delivery of the temple by

the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9th April 1962. The Petitioners filed a suit, Original Suit No. 936 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif Court,

Erode for a declaration that the temple was a denominational one under Article 26 of the Constitution. On 21st January 1963 Writ Petition No.

513 of 1962 was dismissed without prejudice to the Petitioner''s contentions in the suit that had already been filed by them. The plaint in Original

Suit No. 936 of 1962 was returned by the District Munsif''s Court, Erode for presentation to the proper Court, as it had no pecuniary jurisdiction.

The plaint was represented in the Sub-Court, Erode and the suit was numbered as Original Suit No. 71 of 1963, and is pending. The Respondents

filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 371 of 1963 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode for delivery of the temple and the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate overruling the objections of the Petitioners ordered delivery of the temple to the Respondents and the temple was delivered to the

Respondents. The present revision petition is filed against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Erode directing delivery of the temple to the

Respondents.

It is not disputed that the Respondents are the lawfully appointed trustees of the temple by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Board, Salem. The order was also confirmed by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Board, Madras. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1962 filed by the Respondents for delivery of possession of the temple the

Petitioners contended that they were entitled to possession as office bearers of Kamakshiamman Alaya Paripalana Sabha. It was further

contended that the members of the community elected the President of the Kamakshiamman Alaya Paripalana Committee and he was looking after

the affairs of the temple, and the Area Committee was in error in appointing the Respondents as trustees without notifying the temple or calling for

applications for appointment of the trustees. In Original Suit No. 936 of 1962 filed by the Petitioners the contention was that the temple was a

denominational one and not within the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

Mr. R. Sundaralingam, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power u/s 101 of Act XXII

of 1959 to direct delivery of possession of the temple to the Respondents, as the temple is a denominational one and the Petitioners are not

trustees, who have been dismissed or suspended from their office or otherwise not entitled to he in possession of the temple. Section 101 of the

Act empowers a person appointed as a trustee or executive officer of a religious institution, when resisted in obtaining possession of the religious

institution by a trustee of the religious institution, who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or otherwise not entitled to be in possession,

to apply to the Magistrate of the First-Class and on production of the order of appointment obtain delivery of possession of the religious institution.

This section does not apply to cases where a person claims to be in good faith to be in possession of the temple of his own account or on account

of some, person, who is not a trustee, office holder or servant of the religious institution. The order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under this

section shall not bar the institution of a suit by an aggrieved person for establishing his title to the suit property.

As pointed out by Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) in Prattipatti Dandaiah v. Venkatarama Dikshitulu (1953) 2 M.L.J. 550 the underlying

purpose of the section is apparent and it is conceived and enacted in public interests to enable a trustee of a temple to recover its properties

expeditiously from recalcitrant ex-trustees or other servants, of the temple. While the section enables the temple to recover its properties from the

ex-office-holders it gives the ex-office-holders adequate protection against arbitrary eviction by enabling them to resort to a Court of law. The

section was enacted to prevent the trustees and other recalcitrant servants of the temple from resorting to obstructive tactics and involving the

temple in prolonged litigation. In the public interest this provision enables the temple to obtain possession of its properties while giving a right to the

aggrieved party to have resort to the civil Court to establish his rights. There can be no doubt that the section enables a trustee or an executive

officer of a religious institution to obtain possession of the religious institution from a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution, who

has been dismissed or suspended from his office. Under the Act a trustee is appointed by the authorities for a term of office. If the trustee is

dismissed or suspended or ceases to hold the office by efflux of time or by incurring any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Act, there can be

no doubt about the applicability of Section 101 of the Act. Mr. Sundaralingam, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that under the

section only a trustee, who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession can be dispossessed,

and in this case the Petitioners are neither dismissed nor suspended trustees and it cannot be said that they are persons, who come within the

clause otherwise not entitled to be in possession. The learned Counsel submitted that this clause is applicable only to trustees dismissed or

suspended or in like manner become not entitled to be in possession and is not applicable to costs where the trustees continue to administer the

temple in their own right. The section exempts any person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account. This clause would remove

from the purview of the section persons, who claim the temple in their own right and not as trustees of the temple. Sub-clause (22) of Section 6 of

the Act defines trustee as follows:

Trustee"" means any person or body by whatever designation known in whom or in which the administration of a religious institution is vested, and

includes any person or body who or which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee.

Therefore, any person in whom the administration is vested or any person who is liable as a trustee will be a trustee for the purposes of the Act.

Any person, who claims to be entitled to administration of the temple and accountable as a trustee will not be a person claiming in good faith to be

in possession on his own account. Therefore, the Petitioners will be trustees u/s 101 of the Act. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable to all Hindu public religious institutions and when trustees are appointed under the provisions of the Act, they

are entitled to take charge of the temple and its properties and manage the temple during their term. When persons are appointed trustees to non-

hereditary temples, by virtue of their appointment they are entitled to possession of the temple, and a person, who is already in possession of the

temple as a trustee, is no more entitled to be in possession. He will be a trustee otherwise not entitled to be in possession. u/s 101 or the Act any

other construction of the words otherwise not entitled to he in possession will not be in keeping with the spirit of the section. The Section was

specifically enacted for the purpose of saving religious institutions from prolonged litigation in obtaining possession of the temple and its properties

from recalcitrant trustees, while reserving the right of the aggrieved parties to resort to a court of law to establish their rights. The intention of the

enactment will be defeated by confining the words otherwise not entitled to be in possession as meaning only trustees dismissed, suspended or

whose term is terminated by efflux of time or disqualification, etc. A liberal interpretation of the words is in conformity with the intention of the

enactment. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that Section 101 of the Act is inapplicable in this case. The

Petitioners have already filed a suit and they are at liberty to establish their rights in the civil Court.

If the institution is a denominational one and not within the purview of the Act, it is for the Petitioners to obtain proper relief from the civil Court.

In the result this petition is dismissed.