M. Chinnathambi Gounder and others vs S.S. Mani

Ratnavel Pandian, J.—The Respondents before the Judicial I Class Magistrate No. 1, Salem, in M. Order 965 of 1974 on his file, have

preferred this revision petition canvassing the correctness of the order of the Magistrate directing to deliver possession of Arulmigu(sic) Peria(sic)

Mariamman Temple in Jari Veerannam village to the Respondent herein (Petitioner in M. C. No. 963 of 1974).

The Respondent herein filed a petition under S. 101 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, against the Petitioners herein, who are, according to him, the ex-

trustees and poojaries respectively of the said temple. According to him, be is appointed the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the said temple.

Further, it is alleged in the petition that the Petitioners, who were in possession of the temple, its records and properties, refuted to hand over

possession thereof to the Respondent and that the Petitioners attempted to alienate the properties of the temple. The Petitioners filed a counter to

the affect that the election of the Respondent as Managing Trustee is not valid in law, that contrary to the custom, the election of the Respondent

has not been published by tom tom and that the Petitioners have preferred an appeal against the election of the Respondent and the said appeal is

pending During the enquiry, the Respondent produced a certificate dated 16th January, 1979 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, H. R. & C.E.

(Adm.), Department, Salem-7, stating that the Respondent it present Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the said temple, and he also produced

copies of the memo issued by the Assistant Commissioner directing the Petitioners to deliver possession of the records and properties and the

temple to the Respondent. The Petitioners, though they had contended that they had preferred an appeal against the election of the Respondent,

did not produce any document in proof of having filed such an appeal. Under these circumstances, the lower Court made the above order.

In this revision petition, the Petitioners would contend that the lower Court had failed to apply the principles laid down in the decision reported

in Angappan V. Deputy Commissioner H.R. & C.E (1) as per which an application u/s 101 of the Act has to be filed by all the trustees and in this

particular case, when there are five trustees, unless all the trustees apply u/s 101 of the Act, the petition itself is not maintainable and therefore it has

to be dismissed in limine. Though he has raised some more contentious in this revision petition, he confines himself only with the above contention.

It is common ground that there are four other trustees besides the Respondent appointed as trusteess of the said temple and that only the

Respondent bad filed M.C. 965 of 1974. Therefore, we have to see whether the petition by the Respondent alone, without joining the other

trustees of the temple, would be in proper compliance with the provisions of S. 101 and whether the order passed by the lower Court could be

sustained.

Mr. N. S. Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, cited the following decisions in support of his contention. A Division Bench

of this Court, consisting of Ramachandra Iyer C. J., and Venkatsdri, J., held in the decision in Angappan v. Deputy Commissioner 1965 I M.L.J.

151 : 77 L.W. 604 as follows:

It is well-settled that in the case of co-trustees, the office is a joint one, all of them forming, as it were, one collective body. They should therefore

execute the duties of their office in their joint capacity. The application for the certificate is itself a statutory Proceeding and it is only the entire body

of trustees that can represent the institution in such proceedings,.... It it well-known rule of the interpretation that where a statue uses the singular, it

would include the plural unless it is indicated otherwise. The singular word ''a person'' In Section 101 would include all the trustees.

Thus, in the above decision, their Lordships held that the certificate granted being only in favour of one among the five trustees, cannot be held at a

valid one. The same decision was followed by Venkataraman, J., in P.V. Kuppayandi Pillai Vs. Veerakutti Goundar and Others, with the following

observation:

An application under S. 101 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, has to be made by all the trustees

appointed by the Area Committee. The fact that one of the trustees bad resigned but whose resignation bad not been accepted by the

Commissioner on the date of the application for delivery u/s 101 ""renders the application as If that trustee had not joined in the application. Such

an application u/s 101 is not maintainable"".

Later, Gokulakrishnan, J., in Cr.R.C. No. 315 of 1972 (Maruthamuthu and Ors. v. Ramaswamy Chettlar and Anr. 1972 T.L.N.J. 541 has

observed :

All the trustees must become Petitioners for the purpose of filing a petition u/s 101 of the Act. The procedure mentioned in Section 101 of the Act

is of a summary nature and the mention of the phrase by the person so appointed'' clearly contemplates that all the trustees appointed mutt together

file the petition u/s 101 of the Act. If there is any disagreement or non-co-operation by one of the trustees so appointed, there are other remedies

open to the parties concerned to get at the institution and the property instead of invoking the summary procedure u/s 101, If S. 101 is invoked,

there must be a strict compliance with the directions made in the said section which has not been complied in this case since one of the trustees hat

not joined at the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Veesa Pandaram v. Gopalaswami 1972 L.W. Cri. 54 where in it has been held that in

order to obtain an effective determination of the question by invoking S 101 of the Act, it is necessary that the institution should be in a proper legal

form and that could be achieved only if the entire body of trustees are on record, either as Petitioners or as Respondents.

As stated supra, in the instant case, the Respondent has not joined the other trustees either as co-Petitioners or as Respondents in M C. 965 of

1974. Hence, the order of the lower Court is vitiated in law and therefore cannot be sustained.

In the result, I allow this revision petition, by setting aside the order of the lower Court.

During the course of the arguments, it is represented that the Respondent has taken possession of the temple on 25th January 1975 as per the

delivery warrant issued by the lower Court to the Inspector of Police, Hastampatti. Even before the notice of the stay petition was served on the

Respondent, according to the Petitioners, they have filed an application u/s 63(b) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.,

Coimbatore for a declaration that the (Petitioner herein) are the hereditary trustees consequently challenging the appointment of the Respondent

and others as trustees, which was pending on the date of the filing of this revision petition, but the present stage of the said appeal is not known.

Therefore, I make it clear that the parties may seek their remedies, if any, by taking legal steps in an appropriate forum.