V.R. Muthuraman Poosari vs Ramakrishnan Poosari

Somasundaram, J.—Muthuraman Poosari, the Petitioner herein was the Managing Trustee of Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, of Irukkargudi

village in Sattur Taluk, of Ramanathapuram District. Besides various irregularities in the administration he had committed several acts of

misappropriation in respect of the Temple funds. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments at Madurai, initiated proceedings

against him and placed him under suspension u/s 53 of the H.R. and C.E. Act. By his order d. 7th February 1972, he appointed the Respondent

herein as a tit person to take charge of the Temple with records and accounts and to manage its affairs pending enquiry into the charges levelled

against the Petitioner. On the basis of this order, the Respondent moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sathur, u/s 101 of the Act for taking

delivery of the Temple, the accounts and the records. The Petitioner resisted this application stating that the charges levelled against him were

frivolous, that the suspension order was mala fide and that the petition by the Respondent alone without the other trustees as Petitioners is not

maintainable and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed in limine. Overruling his objections, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has ordered delivery

of the Temple its accounts, records and funds. The correctness of this order is canvassed in this revision.

Thiru B. Sriramulu, learned Counsel, who appears for the Petitioner contends that the application filed by the Respondent alone without the

other trustees as Petitioners is not maintainable and for this position, be relies upon two Bench decisions of this Court, viz., (1) The Commissioner

for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. A.P.S. Sethurama Pillai and Others, and (2) Angappan v. Commissioner H.R. & C.E. 1965

M.L.J. (1) 151 : 77 L.W. 604. Therefore, the point for determination in this revision is as to whether any application u/s 101 of the Act filed by a

fit person appointed under Clause (4) of Section 53 of the Act alone, without the other trustees as Petitioners therein is maintainable. Section 101

of the Act reads thus:

Where a person has been appointed as trustee or executive officer of a religious institution, or (b) to discharge the functions of a trustee of a

religious institution in (accordance with the provisions of this Act, in any scheme framed by the Board before the 30th September 1951, and such

person is resisted in, or prevented from obtaining possession of the religious institution or of the records, accounts and properties thereof, by a

trustee office-holder or servant of the religious institution who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is other -wise not entitled to be in

possession or by any person claiming or deriving title from such trustee, office-holder or servant not being a person claiming in good faith to be in

possession on his own account or on account of some person not being such trustee office-holder or servant any Presidency Magistrate or any

Magistrate of the First Class in whose jurisdiction such institution or property is situated shall on application by the person so appointed and on the

production of the order of appointment, and where the application is for possession of property, of a certificate by the Commissioner in the

prescribed form setting forth that the property in question belongs to the religious institution, direct delivery to the person appointed as aforesaid, of

the possession of such religious institution, or the records, accounts and properties therefor as the case may be:

Provided however that before issuing any such certificate in respect of any property the Commissioner shall give notice to the trustee, office-holder

or servant of the religious institution, as the case may be of his intention to issue the certificate and consider the objection, if any of such trustee,

office-holder or servants.

Provided further that for the purpose of proceedings under the Sub-section, the certificate aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence that the

properties to which it relates belong to the religious institution.

Provided also that nothing contained in this Sub-section shall bar the institution of a suit by any person aggrieved by an order under the Sub-section

for establishing his title to the said property.

The prayer of the Petitioner is only for an order directing delivery of the Temple records, accounts and funds. Therefore, a certificate u/s 101 of

the Act from the Dy. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. is not necessary for taking possession of these items. Production of the order of appointment

by the newly appointed person or a fit person, is sufficient and this has been done.

Section 53 of the Act confers upon the Dy. Commissioner powers to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees for any of the reasons mentioned in

Sub-clause (a) to (k) of Clause 2 of this Section. Under Clause (4) of the Section, pending enquiry into the charges, he can place a trustee under

suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of a trustee. Such a trustee comes within the purview of

Section 101 of the Act. The intention of this Section is to provide and set up a machinery by which a person appointed as a trustee or Executive

Officer of a religious institution, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, may promptly obtain possession of the properties and records of the

temple from the ex-trustees or Temple servants or then refractory persons, if they are resisted o; prevented form obtaining such possession

peacefully. The purpose underlying the power of suspension conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner by Section 53 of the Act is that in

appropriate cases, the interests of the Temple should not be jeopardised by allowing a person who has been found to have committed acts which

would endanger the interests of the temple, to continue and the authorities are entitled to see that the temple is looked after properly during the

period when the charges levelled against such a trustee are under enquiry. Prompt action in such cases is called for and that is why the Section

enables the immediate appointment of a fit person, to perform the functions of a trustee pending the enquiry.

In The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. A.P.S. Sethurama Pillai and Others, , it was held by a Bench of this

Court that where there are more trustees than one, they will be in a position of joint trustees forming a corporate body or entity and, as such, all

will be entitled to act jointly. This is on the principle that no one of the co-trustees derives title under anyone of them, and no one of them could be

represented by another in legal or quasi-legal proceedings. They must execute the duties of their office in their joint capacity and so far as the

proceedings in Court went, they should be joined in any suit or proceedings with reference to the temple or endow ed properties in a corporate

and collective manner. The right of management is vested in all of them and in proceedings initiated against the trustees all of them should be

parties. Thus, the representation of an institution could be valid or effective only is all the trustees jointly act; Afortiorari, the institution could be

bound by an order only if all the trustees are impleaded to the proceedings as parties. Similarly, in Angappan v. Deputy Commissioner H.R. &

C.E. (1965) 1 M.L.J. 151 : 77 L.W. 604, Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. observed as below:

The ordinary rule is that where a statute employs a singular, it will include the plural, unless it is otherwise indicated. When a single trustee is

appointed, he would undoubtedly have the right to apply for the certificate. If more than one trustee have been appointed, all of them should apply

together. Because, 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.

This principle was recognised by this Court in Ramalingam v. Periakali Goundan (1947) 2 M.L.J. 109 : 60 L.W. 474.

These decisions have proceeded on the principle that the representation of an institution could be valid or effective only if all the trustees jointly

act. This can only be in cases where there are more than one trustee in the institution, and they cannot be applied to a case where a person is

appointed as an Executive Officer or as a fit person to manage the affairs of the temple. On a plain reading of the Section, it will be clear that

where a single trustee is appointed, undoubtedly, he alone would have the right to apply for the certificate and then move the concerned Magistrate

for being put into possession u/s 101. This is the principle laid down in Angappan v. Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1965) 1 M.L.J. 151 :

77 L.W. 604. So, in a case where only one person is appointed to discharge the duties and functions of a trustee, he alone can file an application.

The theory of joint representation or corporate or collective action contemplated by the Bench decision will not and cannot apply to this case

because, besides him, there is no one else to come on record for such joint action.

In Sarangapani Iyer and Ors. v. Natarajan, Executive Officer of Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Vizhapallam and Ors. 1972 C.R.C. 230

of , one Executive Officer was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner to take charge of a temple from the several trustees. He filed a petition u/s

101 to take charge of the temple. It was contended that in the absence of the other trustees, the application filed by him was not maintainable.

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. while negativing this contention has observed as below:

The Executive Officer is empowered to take possession of the religious institution for the purpose of administration of its properties. The

appointment has been specifically made for taking possession of the religious institution and also its properties.... The executive officer has power

to file a petition u/s 101 of the Act for taking possession of the religious institution and also its properties.... The trustees are of one category and

the executive Officer is of another category. It is true that the trustees cumulatively represent the institution and not a single trustee. It has been laid

down that when a petition u/s 101 is to be filed by the trustees, all trustees should join together and file the petition, or such of those trustee''s who

do not cooperate must be made as Respondents to the petition. But this principle does not apply when a petition is filed by the Executive Officer,

because, as already pointed out, the Executive Officer belongs to a different category whose powers and duties are defined u/s 45 of the Act.

When the petition is to be filed by the Executive Officer, it is not necessary that he should mix up with the trustees for filing the petition or that he

should make them as Respondents to the petition. I am therefore, of the view that the petition filed by the Executive Officer without making the

trustees as parties to the petition is certainly maintainable.

Similarly, in the present case only one person has been appointed as a fit person under Clause (4) of Section 53 of the Act, to discharge the

functions of a trustee pending enquiry into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Therefore, no question of joint action by a corporate body

would arise in such a case. The petition filed by the Respondent alone u/s 101 of the Act is maintainable. The court below has rightly rejected the

contentions advanced by the Petitioner.

The revision petition fails and is dismissed.