Trustees' duty to account: civil suit for past management accounts allowed despite statutory audit and surcharge scheme.

A suit by successor trustees seeking rendition of accounts from ex-trustees was maintainable in civil court because the duty to account is an inherent incident of trusteeship. Section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was held not to bar the suit, since the statutory scheme for budgets, accounts, audit and surcharge regulated current administration but did not provide a complete remedy for compelling ex-trustees to account for past management. The Court held that a general audit and surcharge mechanism does not exclude ordinary civil jurisdiction unless the Act expressly or by necessary implication supplies a specific remedy for that relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit by present trustees against ex-trustees for rendition of accounts of temple management was maintainable in a civil court, and whether section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 barred such a suit.

Analysis: The liability of a trustee to account is a basic incident of trusteeship and is not dependent on proof of negligence or wilful default. A suit by the successor trustees for accounts of the prior management was therefore a suit on a private trust-related obligation, and not a proceeding seeking enforcement of a public right in the sense contemplated by the statutory bar. Section 93 was construed as restricting civil suits only where the Act itself provided a remedy for the matter in dispute. Chapter VII, dealing with budgets, accounts and audit, was held to provide supervision of current financial administration and a surcharge machinery, but not a complete mechanism for compelling ex-trustees to render accounts to successor trustees for their past management. The provisions for audit and surcharge did not exhaust the field of back accounting, nor did they bar a suit for accounts against ex-trustees.

Conclusion: The suit for rendition of accounts was maintainable and section 93 of the Act did not bar the civil court's jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on civil suits will not extend to a suit for rendition of accounts against ex-trustees unless the Act expressly or by necessary implication provides a specific remedy for that very relief; a general audit and surcharge scheme does not by itself exclude the ordinary civil jurisdiction.

---