1922 (4) TMI 1 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the temple lands.
2. Misfeasance, breach of trust, and falsification of accounts by the trustee.
3. Removal of the trustee from office.
4. Framing a scheme for the management of the temple and its properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Temple Lands:
The principal issue in this appeal is the ownership of extensive and valuable lands. The appellant contends that these lands belong to the temple, while the respondent, the hereditary trustee (dharmakarta), claims them as his private property. The District Judge's narrative of the plaintiff's case states that the defendant misappropriated income from temple lands without proper accounting. The defendant contends that his ancestors were trustees before the government assumed management and denies any misappropriation, asserting that the lands in schedules A.1, A.2, A.7, and A.8 were always owned by his family.

The historical context provided by the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the affairs of the East India Company of 1812 and Mr. Lionel Place's final report of 1799 supports the mirasi tenure system, under which the lands were held. The primary question is whether the property was held under mirasi tenure by the temple or personally by the respondent. The records from 1825 and 1876, including the paimash jariff taram chitta and the survey and settlement register, indicate that the lands were temple properties managed by the dharmakarta. The 1876 register explicitly lists the lands under the name of the trustee, confirming temple ownership.

2. Misfeasance, Breach of Trust, and Falsification of Accounts:
The grounds for the removal of the respondent from his position as dharmakarta include misfeasance, breach of trust, and falsification of accounts. The District Judge found that the accounts presented by the respondent were fabricated for the purpose of the suit, containing false entries. The High Court concurred, noting serious reasons to believe the accounts were written up specifically for the litigation. This conduct undermines the trustworthiness required for the role of dharmakarta.

3. Removal of the Trustee from Office:
Given the unfounded assertion of private ownership and the concoction of accounts, the Board concluded that the respondent should be removed from office. The trustee's conduct during the suit, including the falsification of accounts, was sufficiently grave to warrant removal. The worshippers of the temple, as the true beneficiaries, and the Court are entitled to insist on the removal of a trustee who has demonstrated such delinquencies.

4. Framing a Scheme for the Management of the Temple and Its Properties:
The Board recommended that the High Court select a new trustee of sufficient standing in the district to ensure effective transfer and administration of the temple properties. The scheme drawn up in the District Court, with necessary modifications, was deemed suitable. The list of endowments must be updated to reflect the affirmed extent of temple property, and a new trustee must be nominated to administer the scheme.

Conclusion:
The properties in suit are established as temple properties. The respondent is removed from office as dharmakarta, and a new trustee will be appointed. The High Court is directed to frame a scheme for the administration of the temple's endowments, and the respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.