9911796707
TMI Blog1922 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whether those lands belonged to the temple or are the private property of the respondent, who, in point of fact, is its dharmakarta or hereditary trustee. 3. The grounds for the removal of the respondent from the position of dharmakarta have been added to by the conduct of the respondent in the course of the suit, and now include not only misfeasance and breach of trust, but the proved falsification of the temple accounts. 4. This question of removal from the position of trustee will be afterwards dealt with, but it may here be mentioned that the former question--namely, the question of the true ownership of the temple properties, so keenly contested by the respondent, has not only to be determined on its merits, but may turn out to have a bearing upon the question of his removal from office. 5. The case is very involved, and their Lordships have to acknowledge the care which has been manifested with regard to it in the Courts below, and in particular the elaborate investigations of the history of this property made by the District Judge. 6. As it is desirable that the Board should endeavour to exclude from this judgment all such details as might obscure the question of princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this litigation. 10. The temple in question is an endowment or institution for the worship of the God Vishnu. It is dedicated to a saint or incarnation called Tiramushi Alwar. The temple lands are at Madavilagam and other villages in the district of Chingleput in the vicinity of the City of Madras. As the plaintiff in the plaint avers: " There is a public Vishnu temple at Madavilagam, a hamlet of Tirumushi, in Poonamalle Division, Saidapet Taluk, dedicated to Sri Jagannatha Perumal and Tirumushi Alwar." That, in point of fact, a temple did exist there from ancient times, and that it was in possession of certain endowments in the shape of lands, seems to be undoubted. 11. The Board has had a roference to various historical authorities upon the subject of the Chingleput district, and upon the mirasi tenure therein. These records are voluminous. It is too much to expect that anything definite can be obtained prior to the devastation of the district by Hyder Ali in the latter half of the eighteenth century. The most valuable document is the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the affairs of the East India Company of the year 1812. The report states : "The jaghir ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is obedient to its authority; and that when he does not, or cannot, cultivate his lands, when he withholds the dues of Government, or is disobedient to its authority, such part as he neglects, or in the latter case the whole, escheats to Government, who may confer it on whom it pleases." 14. These excerpts have been given because the fact has been acknowledged that the village, afterwards referred to, with the lands in suit in the present case, are held under the mirasi tenure. Nor, secondly, is it disputed that Vishnu as a juristic entity, and, as such, owner of the temple dedicated to and appearing under the names Sri Jagannatha Perumal and Tirumushi Alwar, can according to law and must if it accord with fact, be reckoned as a mirasidar holding a village mirasi. The point in the case is: was the property in suit held under mirasi tenure by this mirasidar in the interests of the institution and worshippers of Vishnu attached to it, or was it held by the respondent personally? 15. The respondent founds, and strongly founds, upon the state of the records of this property as for the year 1825. He maintains that there is sufficient indication from this record that the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rta. When the specific entries begin there occur the following " remarks " : " Village miras--Sri Tirumushi Alwar," and a little further down, "No. 1 miras. Tirumushi Alwar devastanam, dharmakarta Nattu Evalappa Mudali." Then still another : "Alwar mantapam tope, No. 1 miras Tirumushi Alwar devastanam." Up to this point the doubt as to the lands being temple lands--it being admitted that they are part of the village miras--has not arisen. When these items came to be entered, the column of remarks shows " village miras," and by far the most important of the entries are those referring to the miras itself--namely, " No. 1 miras," and one of the most important pieces of the property is a tope or grove, which is entered as punja, and in the remarks is stated to be Alwar mantapam tope. So far all is clear. 19. The confusion arises, however, from another document called " Register of lands as per paimash or mamul account." It is to be observed that in it again occurs " No. 1 Village Miras. Tirumushi Alwar," and in No. 83, " No. 1 miras Tirumushi Alwar devastanam," there being added the words " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the trustee to show by the clearest and most unimpeachable evidence the legitimacy of his personal acquisition. Even upon the records of 1825 their Lordships would have inclined to this view. 24. But the records did not end here. In their Lordships' opinion it is necessary in a case of this kind to view the records, transactions and proceedings as a whole. And in their view the greatest weight must be attached to the elaborate proceedings of 1876, and in particular to the survey and settlement register of the village of Madavilagam. That register contains 169 items, including among other particular's an identification, so far as possible, of each item with the old number or name of fields, and in particular the extent and assessment of each plot of land in the whole list. The register is signed by Major C.J. Stuart, acting deputy-director of revenue settlement, and is dated from the Revenue Settlement Office. It cannot be too clearly premised, however, that the Board would not hold any such record to be conclusive evidence of ownership; but, upon the other hand, their Lordships cannot be blind to the importance of such a document which appears, de facto, to have sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is at present a mere matter of account and need not be collected, as the mirasidar himself holds the lands. But if these lands hereafter become waste by relinquishment and are taken up again by a stranger, they will be chargeable with the fee, plus the taram assessment, and the fee thus collected will be payable to the mirasidar." The village is spoken of as an ekabogam village. "Ekabogam," according to Wilson's Glossary, is : " The possession or tenure of village land by one person or family without any co-sharer. The appellation is continued in some instances where other parties have been admitted to hold portions under the original tenure as long as that remains unaltered." 29. It is stated that the lands have been hitherto held by one pattadar, and that the mirasidar himself holds the lands. The extreme importance of this entry arises from the events which had taken place in and about the early sixties of last century. 30. It seems fairly plain that by the middle of the nineteenth century various demands were being made to obtain a statement of the rights of mirasidars in this part of India. In the volume named "Chingleput, late Madras Dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated and repeated in the same sense. And, in short, there is here an official affirmation that these lands are temple lands; that they are held in No. 1 patta; and that the trustee of the temple is Varadappa. 34. It would accordingly appear to be clear that this official document, which it cannot be doubted was prepared after minute inspection and inquiries on the spot, sets at rest any doubt as between private and temple ownership, and clearly affirms the latter. Varadappa was not the private owner; he was the dharmakarta or trustee. It, however, must be admitted that although this was the official view, the record does not commit Varadappa himself to such an affirmation or admission. 35. Most fortunately, however, there are elements of probation existing, applicable to the regime of Varadappa, which greatly help to clear this difficulty away. These instances may be given : (1.) On February 8, 1888, Varadappa brought a suit against the Government in regard to certain lands and trees, which he alleged he was debarred from cultivating. He desired a declaration to establish his right "to the said property as absolute owner thereof." It is, however, an entire mistake to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radappa Mudaliar, shrotriemdar, Kondaikatti Vellala, Vaishnavite, mirasdir of the village of Madavilagam as well as dharmakarta of Tirumushi Alwar devastanam." 37. It is of importance to observe that Varadappa is named and names himself the dharmakarta. This is in truth the legal equipollent to trustee. The position of dharmakarta is not that of a shebait of a religious institution, or of the head of a math. Those functionaries have a much higher right with larger power of disposal and administration, and they have a personal interest of a beneficial character. In the very learned judgments delivered in Vidyapurna Tirtka Swami v. Vidyanidhi Tiriha Swami (1904) I.L.R. 27 M. 435 the distinction between those functionaries is explained. But a dharmakarta is literally and no more than the manager of a charity, and his rights, apart it may be in certain circumstances from the question of personal support, are never in a higher legal category than that of a mere trustee. 38. The details need not further be entered upon as to these deeds, which appear to be numerous, and to assert clearly the fiduciary position in which Varadappa and even his successor,thepresentrespondent,stand. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r mirasidar, Evalappa. They, too, have been claimed by the respondent as his own, and this is a notable circumstance. These facts might have proved obstacles to the learned judges of the High Court in forming their conclusion and assisted in removing any doubt which they felt; but the view which has been taken by their Lordships of the larger issue--namely, of the effect of the 1876 register on the transactions to which Varadappa was a party, affects the whole of the lands in suit, and makes it unnecessary to deal with the individual items referred to. 42. It will now be seen how serious is the position of the respondent as a claimant for the continuance of the trusteeship of this temple and its endowments. The doubts in the minds of the Courts below, on the subject of his being allowed to continue in office, are sufficiently plain. But when it is now decided that the whole of this litigation has substantially been occupied by an unfounded assertion, supported by the concoction of accounts--an assertion by the trustee of private ownership in himself and a powerful resistance to the recovery of these properties for the trust which he administers--it does not appear to their Lordshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
