S. Karuppiah vs A. Subbiah and others

Somasundaram, J.—The Petitioner and one Ramaiah were the trustees of Arumuga Peria Ayyanar and Veeramahali Amman Temples at Gudalur, a village in Trichy District. Their period expired in the year 1970. Thereafter, five persons were appointed as trustees for these temples. One of them filed a petition as the managing trustee u/s 101 of the H.R. and C.E. Act for taking possession of the temples. Originally he did not implead the other trustees, but later, by an application he brought them on record as Respondents. The revision Petitioner Karuppiah and his brother Ramaiah opposed the application on the ground that they had handed over charge of the temples and the records on the expiry of their period to one Viswanatha Udayar. Not accepting their case, the learned Magistrate directed them to deliver possession of the temple and the accounts to the newly appointed trustees. The correctness of their order is now canvassed in this revision.

The only contention urged before me is that five persons were appointed as trustees under Exhibit P.1, that all these five persons should have jointly filed the petition u/s 101 of the Act as Petitioners and that as such the petition filed by them is not sustainable.

In Maruthamuthu v. Ramaswamy Chettiar 1973 L.W. Cri. 29, Gokulakrishnan, J., expressed the view that all the trustees must together file a petition as Petitioners u/s 101 of the Act. The learned Judge further held that if there is disagreement or non-cooperation by any 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, and if Section 101 is invoked, there must be strict compliance with the directions made in the said section which has not been complied with in that case since one of the trustees had not joined as a Petitioner with that finding, this order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate u/s 101 was set aside and the revision was allowed. The learned Judge has referred to the Bench decision of this Court in Angappan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments 77 LW 604 for the view taken by him. In the Bench decision, Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., as he then was has observed as below:

When, therefore, a single trustee is appointed, he would undoubtedly have the right to apply for the certificate and then armed with the certificate apply again to the appropriate Magistrate for being put in possession of the property. But, where as in the present case, more than one trustee has been appointed, all of them should apply together. This is the plain reading of the statute. This view is in accord with the principle as well.

Srinivasan, J. in Kulandavat Poosari v. C.A. Arunachala Pandaram, Managing Trustee of Sri Dharmaraja Iyyanar, etc., temple and Anr. 77 Law Weekly 109 has held that "under Section 101 of the H.R. and C.E. Act 1959, an application for the issue of a certificate by one only of the trustees even if he should happen to be the Managing Trustee, cannot be maintained; In order to obtain an effective determination of the question, it is necessary that the institution should be represented in the proper legal form, and that can be achieved only when the entire body of the trustees are on record whether as Petitioners or as Respondents it does not matter."

The general rule is that if several persons have a joint right of action all must join in suing. If any of them will not come in as Plaintiffs they must be added as Defendants. Co-trustees are subject to the above rule. It has been so held by a Bench of this Court in Thina Shanmuga Moopanar v. Mona Chuna Mana Subbaraya Moopanar 42 M.L.J. 133. Similar view has been expressed by Venkataraman, J., in P.V. Kuppayandi Pillai Vs. Veerakutti Goundar and Others, and by me in S. Veera Pandaram v. P.M. Gopalaswami 1972 LW (Cri.) 54. Gokulakrishnan, J. has held that the Bench Decision in Angappan v. Deputy Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments 77 Law Weekly 604 clearly and categorically contemplates only a joint application by all the trustees and that as such when there is no such application, the relief applied for should not be granted. The principle as laid down in the above Bench decision is this: 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 discharge the duties of their office in their joint capacity. It is well settled that in such cases it is only the entire body of trustees that can represent the institution and a trustee means all the trustees where there is more than one appointed. Even in this Bench decision, Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. has observed as below:

It will undoubtedly be open to them in matters of a routine nature to divide their duties. But, so far as their applications to Courts and to public authorities for enforcement of statutory rights or privileges are concerned, they should all figure as a party or apply for the same.

Figuring as a party can be in the capacity of a Petitioner or as a Respondent. He has further observed that all the trustees should figure as parties in suits and proceedings, the principle being that it is only the entire body of trustees that can represent the institution. What all is required and contemplated is that the institution as such should be represented by the collective body of trustees. It does not mean that they should come only as Petitioners. Here in this case, Respondents 3 to 6 have filed a counter stating that they have no objection for handing over possession of the temple and the records to the other trustees or to the managing trustee, either individually or in the alternative, in his and in their favour. The representation of an institution could be valid or effective only if all the trustees jointly act a fertiorari the institution could be bound by an order of the Board under the Act only if all the trustees are impleaded to the proceedings before the Board. Vide: Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Madras v. Sethurama Pillai 1960 I M.L.J. 157. The other trustees are on record as Respondents and they have no objection to granting the relief prayed for by the Petitioners. Such a contention was not raised in the counter and there is no substance in the contention advanced by the Petitioner. The revision case fails and the same is dismissed.