Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1138 (MAD)

T. K. Mannangatti v. Poongavanam

2000-11-16

C.NAGAPPAN

body2000
Judgment : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Sub-Court. Villupuram passed in O.S. No. 12 of 1985 which is a suit to set aside the order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the fifth defendant herein dated 3.9.84 passed in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 and for a declaration that the office of the trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary. The plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaint averments can be summarised. The plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of three temples dedicated to Pillaiyar, Pidari Amman and Ammachiar at Thanikalampattu village, Tirukoilur Taluk. They are all ancient temples and have been in the management of the plaintiff and his ancestors for more than three generations. The plaintiff and his ancestors have been rendering service as Pusaris and also as hereditary trustees for the temples. A genealogical table showing the family tree of the plaintiff and his ancestors is appended to the plaint. Prior to the year 1980, Chinnathu Kounder was the trustee and Pusari of the suit temples and he died leaving his five sons, Ulakka Kounder, Kutturaju Kounder, Rama Kounder, Narayana Kounder and Ramanathan. After the death of Chinnathu Kounder, his five sons administered the temples jointly and they were functioning as hereditary Pusaris cum trustees. The devolution of Trusteeship of the suit temples has passed on to the legal heirs of Chinnathu Kounder, the first from father to son and to grandsons in an unbroken line of succession. The plaintiff is therefore the present hereditary trustee of the three temples aforesaid. The suit temples have got a total extent of 2.75 acres of inam land and the plaintiff is in management of the land and the income is utilised for defraying the day-to-day expenses and for the administration of the temples. Thus, the office of the trusteeship of the three temples is hereditary in nature. The plaintiff filed an application in O.A. No. 31 of 1982 before the fourth defendant under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for declaration that the office of Trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary impleading the defendants 1 to 3 who have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees by the Assistant Commissioner without any enquiry. The plaintiff filed an application in O.A. No. 31 of 1982 before the fourth defendant under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for declaration that the office of Trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary impleading the defendants 1 to 3 who have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees by the Assistant Commissioner without any enquiry. The fourth defendant dismissed the application on 30.9.1983 and an appeal was preferred before the fifth defendant in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 and it was dismissed by the fifth defendant on 3.9.1984. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 3. The defendants 1 to 3, in their written statement, have contended that there is no proof to show that all the three temples were managed by the ancestors of the plaintiff for the past three generations as Poosari-cum-hereditary trustees. The plaintiff and his father were karnams of the suit village and they had created certain documents to show that the plaintiff and his ancestors were managing the suit temples. The genealogical table provided by the plaintiff is not correct. After due enquiry, the fourth defendant has found that the plaintiff is not a hereditary trustee and dismissed his application. The fifth defendant also dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the fourth defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 are managing the temple lands and the Temple Authorities have leased out the lands on 20.2.85 in public auction in favour of Ponnusamy and Subramanian and those lessees are in possession and enjoyment of the temple lands as tenants. The affairs of the suit temples were maintained and managed by the Village Committee till the defendants 1 to 3 were appointed as Trustees. The Poojas and festivals were done to the suit temples through public collection. Neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors ever performed any Pooja or festival for the suit temples. 4. The defendants 4 and 5, in their written statement, contended that the Inam Fair Register Extract filed by the plaintiff contains the name of Narayanan as worshipper of Pidari Amman and Pillayar Temple and Ramanathan for Ammachiar Temple and the B register filed by the plaintiff contains no name at all. Even in the Settlement Register for the year 1970 and in the demand notices, no person has been described as Trustee or manager of the temple. Even in the Settlement Register for the year 1970 and in the demand notices, no person has been described as Trustee or manager of the temple. In the notice issued by the Settlement Tahsildar in 1970 the name of the plaintiff was referred as Dharmakartha and it cannot prove the case of the plaintiff for hereditary trusteeship. In the patta issued by the Settlement Tahsildar, the name of the plaintiff has been referred as Karnam and not as Manager or Dharmakartha. Even in the Chitta adangal and in the patta book, the name of the plaintiff has been shown as mere Dharmakartha and not as hereditary Dharmakartha. In the kist receipts, no designation for the plaintiff has been given. Thus it could be seen from 1862 to 1960, there is a big gap of 100 years for which there is no proof about the hereditary trusteeship of the suit temples and about its management thereof. The genealogical table has not been proved at all. No documentary evidence has been furnished to prove that the plaintiff’s father and grandfather and great-grandfather have been in the management of the suit temples. The plaintiff did not produce the original Inam Title Deeds which alone would establish the management at the time of confirmation of the grant. The plaintiff himself has admitted that the idols are kept in common place and collection from the public is raised for expenses. The genealogy furnished by the plaintiff is not correct. 5. The Subordinate Judge Villupuram after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to conclude that the trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. In this judgment, the parties are described as in the suit. 6. The points for determination in this appeal are 1. Whether the trusteeship of the suit temples has been with the family of the plaintiff to declare it as hereditary, 2. Whether the order in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 is liable to be set aside. 7. In this judgment, the parties are described as in the suit. 6. The points for determination in this appeal are 1. Whether the trusteeship of the suit temples has been with the family of the plaintiff to declare it as hereditary, 2. Whether the order in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 is liable to be set aside. 7. POINT 1: The suit temples are Sri Pillaiyar, Amman and Ammachiyar temples in Thanikalam Pattu village and according to the plaintiff, he and his ancestors for more than three generations have been in the management of the temples as hereditary trustees cum Pusaris and he prays for a declaration to declare the office of the trusteeship as hereditary. The defendants 1 to 3 are the persons appointed as trustees by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the defendants 4 and 5 are the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of the department. The defendants deny the claim of the plaintiff and contend that there is no proof to show that the suit temples were managed by the ancestors of the plaintiff as contended by him. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he and his ancestors functioned as trustees of the suit temples for more than three generations. Ex.A1 is the-extract of the Inam Fair Register in T.D. No. 1094 dated 12-2-1862 for Pillaiyar temple and T.D. No. 1095 dated 12.2.1862 for Pidari temple and T.D. No. 1096 dated 12.2.1862 for Ammachiyar temple. In Ex.A1, one Narayana Kounder as worshipper for Pillaiyar temple in T.D. No. 1094 and as worshipper for Pidari temple in T.D. No. 1095 and one Ramanathan as worshipper for Ammachiyar temple in T.D. No. 1096 has been referred. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the B Register prepared in the year 1959 and the names of the suit temples alone have been mentioned in it and the name of the trustee or manager of those temples was not mentioned. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Settlement Register of the year 1960 and in that also the suit temples have been mentioned by their names and the name of the trustee was not referred. Ex.A5 is the order of the Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inams Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and in that, Ryotwari Pattas had been granted to all the three temples represented by the Manager for the time being. Ex.A5 is the order of the Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inams Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and in that, Ryotwari Pattas had been granted to all the three temples represented by the Manager for the time being. The plaintiff has not produced the Inam Title Deeds which would establish the management at the time of confirmation of the grant and in the exhibits referred to above, the name of the trustee or manager of the suit temples was not mentioned. 8. Exs.A 7 to A 9 are the Patta Books for the suit temples issued in the year 1975 and in those documents, the plaintiff was referred as Dharmakartha. Exs.A6, A10, A42 are the Chitta and Adangal Extract for the faslis 1370 to 1390 and the plaintiff was described as the present Dharmakartha of the suit temples. Exs.A 11 to A 35, A 37 to A 39 are kist receipts for the faslis 1377 to 1391 and the name of the plaintiff alone without designation was mentioned in those receipts. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is the Karnam and Maniakarar of the village and the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has created the above documents in his name by virtue of his office is also relevant. 9. A genealogical table is appended to the plaint showing the family tree of the plaintiff and his ancestors and according to the plaintiff, Chinnathu Kounder was the trustee and Pusari of the-suit temples and he died leaving his five sons Ulakka Kounder, Kutturaju Kounder, Rama Kounder, Narayana Kounder and Ramanathan and after the death of Chinnathu Kounder, his five sons administered the temples jointly and the devolution of the trusteeship has passed on to the legal heirs of the Chinnathu Kounder the first from father to son and to grandson in an unbroken line of succession and the plaintiff is the present hereditary trustee of the suit temples. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the plaintiff has filed two different genealogical tables in the application filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the fourth defendant herein under Section 63B of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the same was referred in the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is marked as Ex.B7. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the plaintiff has filed two different genealogical tables in the application filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the fourth defendant herein under Section 63B of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the same was referred in the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is marked as Ex.B7. The Deputy Commissioner, in his Ex.B7 order, has mentioned that the petitioner in his application under Section 63B of the Act filed on 3.10.1981 has stated that one Raju Kounder was looking after the affairs of the temples and he had three sons and as a grandson in the line of succession, he is claiming the trusteeship, and the application was returned for rectifying, certain defects on 22.1.1982 and amended copy of the petition has been filed on 22.2.1982 and in that it is stated that one Chinnathu Kounder was looking after the affairs of the temples and the petitioner after getting the Extract of the Inam Fair. Register on 31.12.1981 has changed the genealogical table since he came to know from the Inam Fair Register that one Narayana Kounder and Ramanathan were mentioned as persons in possession of inam lands of the temples in the year 1862. So, the plaintiff has filed two genealogical tables before the fourth defendant in his application filed under Section 63B of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The defendants strenuously contend that the genealogical table appended to the plaint is not true. The plaintiff as P.W.1 has stated that originally Chinnathu Kounder was the trustee of the suit temples and the trusteeship has passed on to him as legal heir in line of succession and in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not produced any document to show the line of succession. In fact, it has been suggested to him in cross- examination that he had filed two genealogical tables before the fourth defendant and of course he has denied that. No documents have been filed to prove that the persons whose names were found in the Ex.A1 Inam Fair Register as worshippers were the ancestors of the plaintiff. In fact, it has been suggested to him in cross- examination that he had filed two genealogical tables before the fourth defendant and of course he has denied that. No documents have been filed to prove that the persons whose names were found in the Ex.A1 Inam Fair Register as worshippers were the ancestors of the plaintiff. Moreover, Ex.A1 relates to the year 1862 and Ex.A2 is the document of the year 1960 and there is a gap of hundred years and the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to prove that his ancestors were the trustees of the suit temples and the other documents produced by the plaintiff are recent origin i.e., after 1970. Even though the plaintiff claims to have leased out the lands belonging to the suit temples, he had not mentioned the names of the lessees and he had not produced the accounts. PW.2. Ponnusamy is a relative of the plaintiff and his evidence in no way helps the plaintiff’s case. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant cites two Judgments of this Court regarding the consideration to declare hereditary trusteeship. In the decision reported in The Assistant Commissioner. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Thanjavur and another v. D.Rajagopala Ponnapoondar and other, 1971 (84) L.W. 764 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the devolution of the office of trusteeship for generations from son to grandson is no doubt prima facie evidence that the office devolves by succession according to the laws of inheritance and the fact that members of a particular family held the office of the Dharmakartha continuously for more than a century and there was assertion by them that it was a hereditary would be good evidence that the office is hereditary. 12. The other decision is Devaki v. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department By its Commissioner and others, 1997 (II) M.L.J. 331 and in that a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “21. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision reported in Ranganatha Pillai v. The Commissioner for H.R. & C.E., 1979 (2) M.L.J. 23 wherein S.Mohan, J., as he then was held as follows: “The definition of ‘hereditary trustee’ in Sec.6, Clause (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is very wide in its amplitude. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision reported in Ranganatha Pillai v. The Commissioner for H.R. & C.E., 1979 (2) M.L.J. 23 wherein S.Mohan, J., as he then was held as follows: “The definition of ‘hereditary trustee’ in Sec.6, Clause (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is very wide in its amplitude. Hereditary trustee is not to be understood as from father to son or son to his son. Having regard to the comprehensive definition, it is enough if a usage is established for a long number of years evidencing exercise of hereditary trusteeship of a particular temple or temples by members of a family. In the instant case, there was no gainsaying that the plaintiffs family alone exercised such right. There were very valuable documents in which description was found that the predecessors of the plaintiffs were the trustees. No objection was taken to the genealogical tree and the trusteeship had been continuously exercised by the members of the plaintiff s family without any objection or hindrance.” 22. The above judgment, in our opinion, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In this case, it is clearly established that for a long number of years (generations) the appellant and her ancestors have exercised their hereditary trusteeship in this particular temple. In the instant case, there is no other evidence to show that except the plaintiff and her ancestors anybody else has exercised any such right. Very valuable documents viz., Exs.A3 to A5 have been filed by the appellant. Ex.A3 describes Veerabadra Pillai son of Muthu Pillai as the trustee of the suit temple. It is also stated that the property has been gifted for daily pooja and neivethyam for their family deity Angala-Parmeswari. There is no reason for us to reject the said ancient document which confers right on the appellant. The trusteeship has been continuously exercised by the members of the appellant’s family without any objection or hindrance from any other source. It must, therefore, be held that the trusteeship of the suit temple was hereditary in the family of the appellant. In similar matters, this Court has taken the view that in respect of a temple when the members of the family for three generations are managing the affairs of the temple, it must be held that the trusteeship was hereditary in the family. In similar matters, this Court has taken the view that in respect of a temple when the members of the family for three generations are managing the affairs of the temple, it must be held that the trusteeship was hereditary in the family. In our opinion, the above ratio squarely applies to the case on hand.” 13. In the above decisions, this Court has dealt with the position as to when the trusteeship of the temple can be declared as hereditary. In the present case, as already seen, the plaintiff has not adduced evidence to show that his ancestors were the trustees of the suit temples and the order passed by the fifth defendant in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 is correct. The trusteeship of the suit temples cannot be declared as hereditary as prayed for in the plaint and it is decided accordingly. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.