Judgment SUBBA RAO, J. : Sri Vaidyanathaswami Temple at Vaitheeswarankoil, Sirkali Taluk, Thanjavur District, Madras State, is an ancient and famous Siva temple. It owns a large extent of immovable property and it is said that its annual income is more than Rs. 2 lakhs. In 1342 the British Government, which was then administering the temple handed over its management to the Pandarasanpadhi of Dharmapuram Adhinam. Since then the said Pandarasannadhi has been managing the same through one of his selected disciples a Kattalai Thambiran. In the year 1919 the High Court of Madras framed a scheme for the administration of the said temple in A. S. No. 181 of 1917. The said scheme provided, among others, that the administration of the temple should be in the hands of the Kattalai Thambiran appointed by the Pandarasannadhi, and that he should be assisted by a treasurer, a shroff and an auctioneer who was to be appointed once in 3 years by the Court. The Madras Legislature passed Act II of 1927 providing for the good administration of temples and their endowments. The Religious Endowments Board functioning under 1684 the said not, presumably because the administration of the temple in question was satisfactory, did not take any steps to have the scheme framed by the High Court in 1919 modified under the said Act. That Act was substituted by The Madras Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act No. XIX of 1951), hereinafter called the Act. On June 16, 1951, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, filed a petition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, under S. 62 (3a) of the Act for modifying the scheme framed by the High Court. In the petition the Commissioner, after alleging various acts of commission and omission by the Trustee and his subordinates in the management of the temple, and pointing out the defects in the earlier scheme, averred that the full income of the Devasthanam had not been secured and safeguarded and that, that was attributable mainly to the defective machinery set up under the scheme for the administration of the temple. The most important of the modifications suggested to the scheme was that an Executive Officer should be appointed in the place of the Kattalai Thambiran and the Treasurer, conferring large powers on him for the day-to-day administration of the temple. The most important of the modifications suggested to the scheme was that an Executive Officer should be appointed in the place of the Kattalai Thambiran and the Treasurer, conferring large powers on him for the day-to-day administration of the temple. The Pandarasannadhi filed a counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made against the management of the temple and asserting that he had functioned in terms of the scheme and had piloted the temple through difficult times successfully. The learned subordinate Judge, after considering the entire material placed before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not substantiated any of the allegations made against the Trustee and that no case had been made out for amending the scheme and for the appointment of an Executive Officer. In the result he dismissed the petition. The State of Madras, represented by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, preferred an appeal against the said order to the High Court of Madras. The said appeal came up before a Division Bench of the High Court. In the High Court the learned Government pleader appearing for the State did not question the correctness of the finding given by the learned subordinate Judge that there was no proof of mismanagement of any kind by Pandarasannadhi or the Kattalai Thambiran. The learned counsel for the Pandarasannadhi had no objection for making formal amendments to the scheme, which became necessary due to lapse of time and due to the passing of the Act. After hearing the parties, the High Court modified the scheme introducing the controversial provision. viz., the appointment of an Executive Officer. In the result, the order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the scheme made by the High Court in 1919 was modified. This appeal has been filed, on a certificate issued by the High Court, against the said decree of the, High Court. 2. Mr. viz., the appointment of an Executive Officer. In the result, the order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the scheme made by the High Court in 1919 was modified. This appeal has been filed, on a certificate issued by the High Court, against the said decree of the, High Court. 2. Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastry, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the High Court, having agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the Commissioner had failed to establish any of the charges levelled by him against the Trustee, erred in modifying the scheme framed by the High Court in the year 1919 introducing drastic changes therein, such as putting the management of the temple under an Executive Officer who could be appointed and removed only by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and also making a provision for the appointment of additional Trustees in future. He has no objection to that part of the scheme introducing formal changes in the earlier scheme so as to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 3. The arguments of Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, learned counsel for the State, may be stated thus: Under the Act a scheme for administration of a temple may be framed or an earlier scheme may be amended not only when there is mismanagement by the Trustee but also for providing for a better administration of the temple. In the present case, though there is no mismanagement by the Trustee, the extensive immovable properties the temple owns, the existence of large arrears of rents, settlement of disputes that may arise between the tenants and the Trustee under the new tenancy laws and such others call for the appointment of a trained Executive Officer by the Commissioner in the best interests of the Temple. That apart, as under the Act the Commissioner is empowered to frame a scheme if he has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a scheme should be settled for the same, his opinion must be given almost a decisive weight by a Court in the matter of amending a scheme. 4. To appreciate the contentions of the parties it will be convenient it the outset to notice briefly the scheme of the Act. 4. To appreciate the contentions of the parties it will be convenient it the outset to notice briefly the scheme of the Act. The Act was passed to provide for the proper administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and institutions in the State of Madras. It provides for the appointment of 4 classes of authorities, namely, Commissioner. Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Area Committees. The Commissioner is the highest authority in the hierarchy. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the administration of all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and for the purpose of such control be can pass any orders which be may deem necessary to ensure that such endowments are properly administered and that their incomes are duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist. 1685 Specific duties have been allotted to the other authorities subject to the overall control of the Commissioner. There are many effective provisions in the Act to ensure proper administration of temples. Trustees have to keep registers for all institutions for the scrutiny of the appropriate authority. They have to furnish accounts and the accounts have to be audited in the manner prescribed in the Act. The Trustees cannot alienate immovable properties or lease the same beyond 5 years without the sanction of the appropriate authority. They have to obey all lawful orders of the appropriate authorities. The service conditions of the officeholders are duly protected. The scales of expenditure have been standardized and a provision is made fixing the fees for archana and the apportionment of the same. The Trustees have to prepare budgets and get their accounts audited. There are provisions even for ordering surcharge against Trustees. All the temples, whether governed by schemes or not, are subject to the said provisions of the Act. Thus, there is a fair amount of financial and administrative control over the Trustees. 5. The general provisions of the Act may be sufficient in the case of temples which are properly administered; but there may be temple without any scheme of administration or even if it has one, it may require to be improved to achieve better results. Thus, there is a fair amount of financial and administrative control over the Trustees. 5. The general provisions of the Act may be sufficient in the case of temples which are properly administered; but there may be temple without any scheme of administration or even if it has one, it may require to be improved to achieve better results. Section 58 enables a Deputy Commissioner to settle a scheme for an institution if he has reason to believe that in the interests of better administration thereof a scheme should be settled for it. His order framing a scheme is subject to appeal to the Commissioner. Under S. 62 of the Act a party aggrieved by the order can file a suit in a Court questioning the correctness of the same and against the order of that Court an appeal lies to the High Court. Under S. 103 (d) of the Act, "all schemes settled or modified by a Court of law under the said Act (The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926) or under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall he deemed to have been settled or modified by the Court under this Act and shall have effect accordingly." Under S. 62 (3) of the Act, any scheme modified by a Court under S. 62 (2) of the Act or any scheme framed or any scheme deemed under S. 103 (d) In have been settled or modified by a Court can at any time be modified or cancelled by a Court on an application made to it by the Commissioner or a Trustee or any person having interest. Any party aggrieved by any order of the Court under cl. (a) of S. 62 (3) may within 90 days of the order appeal to the High Court. The effect of these provisions is that though the Deputy Commissioner settles a scheme at the first instance, an aggrieved party can finally go to a civil Court to have the scheme modified. So too, a scheme framed by a Court under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be modified on an application made to a Court by the Commissioner, Trustee or any person having interest. So too, a scheme framed by a Court under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be modified on an application made to a Court by the Commissioner, Trustee or any person having interest. Before the Act, there was a conflict whether the scheme framed by a Court under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be modified on an application made by an aggrieved party and that conflict is resolved under the Act by an express provision that it can be so done. Where a temple is so badly mismanaged that the administration cannot be improved by the exercise of ordinary powers under the Act or by framing a scheme, the Commissioner is given the power to notify such a temple and put it under the direct control of an Executive Officer directly responsible to him. This is in the nature of supersession of the ordinary administration of a temple. It is, therefore, clear that under the Act the administration of all temples is subject to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the authorities thereunder. The Deputy Commissioner can settle a scheme for the proper administration of a temple. If the administration of a temple is very bad, it can be superseded and the temple notified for a prescribed period. From the scheme of the said provisions we do not see any justification for the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the Court shall accept without scrutiny the view of the Deputy Commissioner that the scheme requires modification in the manner suggested by him and that the formal approval by the Court is all that is contemplated thereunder. While we appreciate the argument that a Court shall have due regard to the views of the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, who is in close touch with the administration of temples, we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that the Court is relieved of its duty of ascertaining the necessity for framing a scheme or to find out the propriety or advisability of the various clauses of a scheme. In framing a scheme, the Deputy Commissioner and in a suit or application for amendment of a scheme, the Court will mould the relief under S. 58 (2) of the Act having regard to the circumstances of each case. In framing a scheme, the Deputy Commissioner and in a suit or application for amendment of a scheme, the Court will mould the relief under S. 58 (2) of the Act having regard to the circumstances of each case. Section 58 (2) of the Act reads: "A scheme settled under sub-s. (1) far a temple or for a specific endowment other than one attached to a math may contain provision for (a) removing any existing trustee whether hereditary or non-hereditary; * * * * (b) appointing a new trustee or trustees in the place of or in addition to any existing trustee or trustees: (c) defining the powers and duties of the trustee or trustees; (d) appointing, or directing the appointment of a paid executive officer who shall be a person professing the Hindu religion, on such salary and allowances as may as may be fixed, to be 1686 paid out of the funds of the institution; and defining the powers and duties of such officer: * * * *" The Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be, is not bound, in framing a scheme to appoint an Executive Officer in every case; but a case will have to be made out for appointing him: that depends upon the facts established in each case. 6. with this background let us look at the scheme framed by the High Court. The scheme is made a part of the judgment of the High Court. The clauses of the scheme read thus: 1. The temple of Sri Vaithianathaswami at Vaitheeswarankoil Shiyali Taluk, and the shrines and minor temples attached thereto, and charities and endowments thereof, together comprise the "Velur Devasthanam , and it shall be governed by the provisions of Act XIX of 1951 and the rules made thereunder. 2. The properties, movables and immovables, belonging to the Devasthanam and that may hereafter be acquired by the Devasthanam shall vest in the deity of Sri Vaithiranathaswami. 3. The administration of the Devasthanam and its properties shall vest in the Pa For Citation : AIR 1965 SC 1683