1944 (8) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appellant's standing as a "person having interest" in the temple.
2. Alleged misfeasance and malfeasance by respondents.
3. Extent of temple properties and accountability of respondents.
4. Removal of respondents from trusteeship.
5. Validity of trust funds and respondents' liability to account.
6. Power of the court to settle a scheme for temple management.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appellant's Standing as a "Person Having Interest":
At a previous hearing, the court held that the appellant qualified as a "person having interest" under Section 9, Sub-section 9, of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, thereby entitling him to sue.

2. Alleged Misfeasance and Malfeasance by Respondents:
The appellant alleged various acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and misappropriation of trust moneys by the respondents. The lower court found that the appellant failed to prove these allegations, and the High Court agreed, noting that most charges were unfounded and appeared to be due to a misapprehension of the entries in the accounts.

3. Extent of Temple Properties and Accountability of Respondents:
The respondents admitted that the temple owned lands in Elanangur, Vayalamur, and Nandimangalam villages, and houses in Chidambaram town. The court found that the respondents did not claim any beneficial interest in certain properties but represented them as belonging to a distinct charity, the "Elamaiyakkinar Koil Patasala." The court accepted this representation and found no evidence to the contrary.

4. Removal of Respondents from Trusteeship:
The court considered the claim for removal of the respondents from trusteeship. Despite some irregularities, no serious charge involving dishonest or fraudulent conduct was proven. The court found that the respondents had dealt with the temple honestly and fairly, and their conduct did not justify removal from office.

5. Validity of Trust Funds and Respondents' Liability to Account:
The main contention revolved around whether certain credit entries in the respondents' business accounts constituted valid gifts or trusts. The court concluded that these entries were mere book entries without actual allocation of funds, and therefore, no valid gifts or trusts were created. The respondents were not held accountable for these sums.

6. Power of the Court to Settle a Scheme for Temple Management:
The court held that it had no power to settle a scheme for the management of the temple in a suit brought under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Act vests the power of settling schemes initially in the Board constituted under Section 10, and the court's jurisdiction is limited to modifying or canceling schemes settled by the Board or the court itself under the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the respondents directed to invest a specific capital fund in proper securities as per the Board's directions. The appellant's costs in both courts were to come out of the trust estate, and the respondents were to bear their own costs. A copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for further action.