Nallu Poosari vs P.S. Palaniappan, Hereditary Trustee of Sri Arulmigu Mariamman Temple at Valanadu, Tiruchi

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli allowing the petition of the

respondent Palaniappan filed under S. 101 (a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 against the

revision petitioner.

The facts: The respondent, Palaniappan, is the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Mariatnman Temple at Valanadu and has been discharging

faithfully his duties as such trustee. The revision petitioner was the quondam poosari and he also claims to be a hereditary poosari. He was not

performing the pooja regularly and was slack in his duties and even conducted himself in a manner detrimental to the interest of the temple. He was

suspended for dereliction of duties and in his place one Perumal Poosari was appointed. But, the revision petitioner did not hand over possession

and on that account the respondent could not commence the work for festival. He therefore, came up with an application already referred to. That

application was resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that the respondent cannot apply under S. 101 (a) and (b) of Act 22 of 1959 as

he is only a hereditary trustee and not a ''trustee appointed''. The learned Magistrate found that the respondent is entitled to maintain an application

under S. 101 (a) and (b) of the Act and allowed it. The revision petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision.

The only contention raised before me is that under S. 101 (a) and (b) of the Act only a trustee who has been appointed to discharge the

functions of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, could

maintain an application and that under S. 101 (a) and (b) he should also produce an order of appointment and that the petitioner being a hereditary

trustee not so appointed, is net entitled to file an application under S. 101 of the Act. S. 101(b) runs thus;

101 (1) where a person has been appointed:-

(a) . . .

(b) to discharge the functions of a trustee of 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 otherwise 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 of the person appointed as aforesaid, for the possession of such religious institution, or the records, accounts and properties thereof,

as the case may be.

(Emphasis is mine)

It is not disputed that the revision petitioner is the servant of a religious institution as he is a poosari, nor is it disputed that he has been suspended

from his office and that the order of suspension has been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments, Tsruchirapalli. The question is whether the respondent as hereditary trustee can maintain an application. The term ""hereditary trustee

is defined under S. 6(11) to mean the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by

usage or is Specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force. It is no doubt true that a hereditary trustee

owes his office by succession which devolves on him by the hereditary right and not through any appointment by any authority. For the word

''appoint'' the following meaning is given in Webster''s Seventh New College Dictionary:

Appoint: to name officially: to appoint for; to fix for set official: to determine the disposition of (an estate) to someone by virtue of a power of

appointment.

In O.A. No. 6 of 1975 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department, the

Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on the application by the respondent under S. 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Act, a true copy of which is filed, and the relevant portion of which I am extracting below:

Hence, the petition be and is hereby allowed and the petitioner is declared to be holding the office of the trustee of the temple as hereditary trustee.

This order, which names officially the respondent as hereditary trustee therefore, must be deemed to be an order of appointment. Further, the

term ''trustee'' as defined in S. 6(22) of she Act, means any person or body by whatever designation known in whom or in which the administration

of a religious institution is vested, and includes any person or body who or which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee. S. 101 also

refers to a person who has been appointed as ''trustee''. Therefore, in my view, there is nothing in S. 101(a) and (b) to suggest that a hereditary

trustee is barred from filing an application under that section. I The object of Act 22 of 1959 is to amend and consolidate the law relating to

administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. To hold that a hereditary trustee will

have no right to make an application under S. 101 of the Act would amount to holding that the hereditary trustee will not be entitled to possession

of the property in question belonging to the religious institution from the servant of the religious institution who has been dismissed or suspended

from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession thereby extinguishing his hereditary right to administer the religious institution and to

do all things necessary for the (sic).