The Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments vs S.S. Janakirama Ayyar and Others

Rajamannar, C.J.—This is a petition filed by the Comissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, .for a revision of

the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, dated 10th October 1952, in the following circumstances. A scheme was framed for Sri

Kamakshi Amman temple at Tanjore by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in Original Suit No. 1 of 1919. Clause (2) of that scheme

provided that the management and control of the affairs of the temple and its properties shall vest in five trustees of whom two were to be elected

by ballot and the three others to be appointed by the Court once in five years from among the Brahmin residents within the municipal limits of

Tanjore who by their character, position, education and ability command the confidence of the community. It appears that of the three resident

trustees who had been appointed by the Court two resigned in September 1952, and the third ceased to be a trustee by efflux of time sometime in

October 1952. Thereupon applications were called for to fill up the vacancies and fifteen applications were received and from them the learned

Subordinate Judge selected three. The managing trustee of the temple brought to the notice of the learned Subordinate Judge a communication

from the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments , Madras, which drew the attention of the Court to Section 103(e) (ii) of

the Madras Hindu Religious and Chari table Endowments Act, 1951, and it was submitted that the

Commissioner was the competent authority to make the appointment of the three resident trustees. The learned Judge held that it was the

Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, who was the proper authority to appoint the trustees and not the Com missioner. He came to this conclusion because

in his opinion the two decisions of this Court in Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and Another Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu

Religious Endowments, Madras and Others, and Devaraja Shenoy v. State of Madras (1952) 65 LAY. 988. must be deemed to have held

Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, to be in valid, and, therefore, the Commissioner could have no

power of management of religious institutions like the temple in question. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,

Madras, has filed this revision petition challenging the correctness of the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Advocate-

General, who appeared for him, intimated to us that the Commissioner was more interested in the general principle than in upset ting the particular

appointments made by the learned Subordinate Judge.

In our opinion, the learned Judge was entirely wrong in holding that the Sub-Court, Tanjore, continued to be the proper authority to appoint the

three resident trustees under clause (2) of the scheme. His reference to Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, 1951, was inappropriate, as it is not the case of the Commissioner that his power to appoint the trustees in question is derived from the

provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The relevant and material provision is, as already mentioned, Section 103(e)(ii) of the Act. That clearly

provides that all powers conferred and all duties imposed on a Court by a scheme settled by a Court shall be deemed to have been conferred or

imposed on the Area Committee if the institution is subject to the jurisdiction of such a committee and on the Commissioner, in other cases, and the

Area Committee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties in accordance with the provisions

of the scheme subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, specified in the scheme. Undoubtedly the power and duty of filling up vacancies

among the resident trustees is power and duty imposed by the scheme. There fore such power after the passing of the Act of 1951, should be

deemed to have been conferred or imposed on the Area Committee or the Commissioner, the Commissioner in this case. The learned Judge was,

therefore, wrong in holding that the Sub-Court is the only proper authority to appoint the resident trustees under clause 2 of the scheme.

As already mentioned, it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the learned Subordinate Judge as such appointing three persons as

resident-trustees. With the above expression of opinion, the civil revision petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.