Trustees must render accounts despite allegations; ex-trustees liable, Supreme Court clarifies.

The Supreme Court held that the present trustees' suit for rendition of accounts against the ex-trustees was maintainable. The Court emphasized that trustees must render accounts regardless of allegations of negligence or default. It ruled that ex-trustees are liable to render accounts, referencing precedents. The Court clarified that Section 93 of the Act does not bar such suits. Chapter VII facilitates but does not exempt trustees from rendering accounts. The High Court's decree was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit for rendition of accounts by present trustees against ex-trustees.
2. Liability of ex-trustees to render accounts.
3. Applicability of Section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
4. Scope of Chapter VII of the Act concerning the rendition of accounts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit for Rendition of Accounts:
The core issue is whether the present trustees of a temple can file a suit for the rendition of accounts against the ex-trustees. The initial judgment by the Subordinate Judge held that the suit was maintainable. The District Judge affirmed this decision, but the High Court reversed it, stating that a suit for accounts was not maintainable. The Supreme Court concluded that the suit was indeed maintainable, emphasizing that trustees must render accounts of their management regardless of allegations of negligence or wilful default.

2. Liability of Ex-trustees to Render Accounts:
The Supreme Court stated that "no trustee can get a discharge unless he renders accounts of his management." The liability to render accounts persists irrespective of negligence or wilful default. The Court highlighted that the ex-trustees had not provided accounts of their management, thus they were liable to render accounts to the present trustees. The Court referenced multiple precedents to support this view, including the principle that back accounting will not be decreed except on proof of dishonesty and malversation.

3. Applicability of Section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951:
Section 93 of the Act states that no suit or legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in any court except under and in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court interpreted this section to mean that it does not impose a total bar on the maintainability of a suit in a civil court but only imposes restrictions on suits in respect of matters for which a provision is made in the Act. The Court concluded that Section 93 did not bar the present suit for rendition of accounts as it did not fall within the scope of any specific provision of the Act.

4. Scope of Chapter VII of the Act Concerning Rendition of Accounts:
Chapter VII of the Act deals with budgets, accounts, and audits. The Supreme Court noted that this chapter provides a mechanism for scrutinizing accounts and issuing orders of surcharge but does not cover the rendition of accounts by ex-trustees to present trustees. The Court emphasized that Chapter VII facilitates the rendition of accounts but does not exonerate trustees from their liability to render accounts. The Court concluded that Chapter VII does not provide for determining or deciding disputes regarding the rendition of accounts by ex-trustees, and thus Section 93 of the Act is not a bar to the maintainability of such a suit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decree and restored the Subordinate Judge's decree, holding that the present trustees' suit for rendition of accounts against the ex-trustees was maintainable. The Court ruled that ex-trustees are liable to render accounts of their management and that neither Section 93 nor Chapter VII of the Act barred the suit. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appellant throughout.

---