9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain to Sub-Court, Nagapattinam). There was a compromise in this suit and a decree was passed therein on 8-12-1921. This compromise decree is Ex. A-1. Clauses 5, 7 and 8 of this compromise decree are important and they are these: "5. We have settled that such of the moveables that are in the possession of the respective parties shall be taken by themselves respectively, that the Immovable property mentioned in the C Schedule shall be set apart for charity, and that both shall recover the outstanding amounts and shall take the same between themselves in equal shares. 7. We are agreed that the D Schedule village shall be sold and that (the sale proceeds) shall be taken in equal shares. Out of the sale proceeds realised as aforesaid the plaintiff shall spend a sum of ₹ 2000 and build a Pilliar temple at Thillayadi. 8. The income derived from the C Schedule property is set apart for the daily pooja, the feeding of Brahmins and the Ekadasi and Krithikai ubhayams in the Pilliar temple. Veluswami Pillai and his santhathis shall manage the aforesaid charities". 2. Veluswami Pillai executed a will Ex. A-2 in favour of his wife Rajammal on 31-8-1927. The crucial recitals i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 8-8-1955. By that time, the defendant had deposited in Court ₹ 5000 towards mesne profits. The High Court in its judgment confirmed the District Judge's finding regarding the trust character of the suit properties and the invalidity of the sale relied on by the defendant. But the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was bad for want of prior sanction under Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927. The High Court also observed that the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Endowments should take immediate steps to recover the properties wrongfully alienated by Rajammal and see that the Pilliar temple was built as contemplated under the terms of the compromise decree. The Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Endowments then appointed the plaintiff as an interim trustee of the plaint charity and authorised him to take action to recover the suit properties with mesne profits. The present suit was filed thereafter by the plaintiff for the reliefs mentioned above. 5. In his written statement, the defendant raised the following pleas. The compromise decree made it clear that the income from the C schedule properties sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gious services were to be performed in a Pilliar temple to be built would not make it an invalid bequest. He also referred to the earlier decision in O. S. 4 of 1949, which was confirmed by the High Court about there being a valid dedication of the properties to the trust. The learned Judge found that both Veluswami Pillai and Rajammal accepted the office of trusteeship and were trustees. He found that the sale-deed relied on by the defendant was not valid and binding on the trust. He also found that the plaintiff had authority by reason of his appointment as interim trustee. to maintain the suit for recovery of the suit properties. He held that Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. authorised the Commissioner to make such appointments for the purpose of administration of the religious endowments subject to his superintendence and control. In regard to the plea of adverse possession. the learned Judge held that the relevant provision of the Limitation Act is Art. 134(b). that under that Article, a suit to recover possession of properties which have been alienated by the previous manager can be filed within 12 years from the date of death of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon a double fiction, namely, first that the Hindu deity is for all purposes a juridical person secondly that a dedication to the deity has the same characteristics and is subject to the same restrictions as gift to a human being. The first of these propositions is too broadly stated and the second is inconsistent with the first principles of Hindu Jurisprudence. The provisions of Hindu Law relating to secular gifts are therefore not applicable when the dedication is to the idol...... Thus, a dedication to an idol is really a dedication to the deity who is ever present and ever existent, the idol being no more than the visible image through which the deity is supposed specially to manifest itself by reason of the ceremony of consecration." 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the decision of this court in H. R. E. Board. Madras v. Rugmini. ILR 55 Mad 636 AIR 1932 Mad 470. where the following observation is found: "The control of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board over the endowments of a temple is dependent on the temple being one to which the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act applies and the Board has no jurisdiction over the endowments wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s expense.... Veluswami Pillai was also performing Ekadasi Ubhayams in Perumal temple on a large scale and also the Thirukarthikai festival in the Sivan temple." It is, therefore, possible as stated by the above witness that Veluswami Pillai had, during his lifetime. commenced the construction of the pilliar temple and was also performing the services but was notable to complete the building of the temple. It is significant that in his will to his wife, he has clearly referred to the compromise decree and to the fact of the management of the charity mentioned in the compromise decree wan being conducted permanently and that the charity should be done by his wife after his lifetime from the income derived from the property set apart for that purpose. Even Rajammal, though she purported to make an alienation of the C schedule properties earmarked in the will for the religious service has referred to the obligation to complete the Pilliar temple. For that purpose, the defendant withheld ₹ 2000 out of the sale consideration and Rajammal agreed to purpose some other property and offer it as security. This would show that even the defendant, who now challenges the trust, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which do not fall within the scope of any sections of the Act." In an unreported decision of this court in S. A. No. 1396 of 1948 (Mad)--Choolah Puthiyapurail Kunhali v. Thayoth Puthiyapurail Ayyisomma,--Rajamannar C. J. observed-- "I think that the dispute referred to in S. 94 is a dispute between the trustee of an institution on the one hand and the Board on the other. In such a case, the Act specially provides that the dispute shall be decided by the Board in the first instance..... There is nothing in this decision Sri Vythilinga Pandarasannadhi v. T. Sadasiva Iyer.: AIR1928Mad1272 to countenance the view that even when the dispute is not with the Board, but there is a dispute between two private parties the ordinary civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, but it is only the Board which is competent to decide it. There is no such express or implied bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court in Section 84 of the Act." In Venkatacharyulu v. Vasireddi Harihara Prasad: AIR1935Mad964 Varadachariar J. observed-- "The bar under Section 73 Religious Endowments Act, is only in respect of suits relating to the administration or management of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) that the suit was not barred by S. 93 of the Act and that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 15. The third point urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit is barred by time and the defendant has perfected title by adverse possession. In our opinion, the lower court is right in holding that Art. 134(b) of the Limitation Act will clearly apply and that the suit is in time. That Article prescribes a period of 12 years for recovery of properties belonging to a Hindu Religious Endowment transferred to a third party, and the time limit of 12 years is prescribed for recovery of the property from the date of death or removal from the office of the previous manager. Learned counsel, Sri. R. Gopalaswami Iyengar. contended that that Articles could be relied upon, only if Veluswami Pillai never repudiated the trust in his will. He specifically admitted it. Even when Rajammal was acting contrary to the terms of the trust by selling the C schedule properties. she referred to the provisions of the trust in regard to the building of the Pilliar temple and to the performance of the other charities. That apart the Supreme Court in Srinivasa v. Ramaswamy: [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
