TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that in his view the powers of the Temple Committee are of a very restricted character. Prior to Regulation VII of 1817 the British Government and the Hindu Rulers before, them had exercised powers of a visitatorial character over such foundations. See Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Periyanayagam Pillai (1874) L.R. 1 I.A. 209 at p. 232. Under that Regulation which was framed for the due appropriation of the rents and produce of lands granted for the support of Hindu Temples, etc., certain statutory powers and duties were conferred upon the Board of Revenue. Under Section 2 they were charged with a general superintendence of all endowments in land or money granted for the support of Hindu Temples Under Sections 3 and 5 a duty was imposed on them of seeing that the endowments are appropriated to the purposes for which they were granted and to the repairs of the buildings, and under Section 4 they were empowered to dispose of buildings which could not be repaired. Sections 7 to 11 provide for enquiries and reports to the Board by its local agents. Sections 11 to 14 are important. Under Section 11 the local agents are to report to the Board all vacancies in the office of trustees....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure that the extensive powers conferred on the Board of Revenue should be exercised thereafter by the Temple Committees and I think the Court should be very slow to construe the Act in such a manner as to impede the due exercise of these powers. I am therefore with great respect unable to agree with the decision in Santhalva v. Manjanna Shetty (1910) I.L.R. 34 M. 1., which was cited as showing the necessity for a scheme and which decides, if I rightly understand it, that the powers of the Committee are suspended by the occurrence of a vacancy among its members. No authority is cited in judgments in support of this view and the decision has been dissented from in Raghunandan Ramanuja Das v. Bibhuti Bhushan Mukerjee (1911) I.L.R. 39 C. 304, on the authority of an English case Doe v. Godwin (1822) 1 Dowl. and Ry. 259, which is directly in point. This also appears to me not to be in accordance with the principles laid down in Anantanarayana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Pillai (1899) I.L.R. 22 M. 481, as to the Committee being governed by the rules applicable to corporations. The term 'Committee,' said Pollock, C.B. in Reynell v. Lewis (1846) 15 M. and W. 526, means "an individual or body ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition for which it is cited in Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534, and Santhalva v. Manjanna Shetty (1910) I.L.R. 34 M. 1 that where the Board made one of the trusteeships hereditary, it deprived itself of authority to appoint additional trustees. The immediate question here is whether this Devasthanam is subject to the Temple Committee. It was not questioned in Seshadri Ayyangar v. Nataraja Aiyyar (1898) I.L.R. 21 M. 179 and Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534 that it is so subject, and it is admitted by the 1st plaintiff in his plaint in the present case. Further, it is I think clear that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1863 were introduced to cover all classes of cases, and even assuming that in 1863 one of the trustees was hereditary and the other two were nominated by the Temple Committee, I think the case comes under Clause 3 rather than under Clause 4. In any other view I should feel bound to consider whether the decision in Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri. Vedavyasa Alasinga Bhattar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 534 can be supported. 5. This objection being overruled, we have next to consider whether it is competent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... than Act of Parliament will suffice." 6. That case however does not go so far as to decide that the Court cannot frame any scheme at all for a charity under statutory management. On the contrary, although as observed in the judgment no case of breach of trust or maladministration of any bind was suggested by the Attorney-General against the governing body, and there was no case of failure of the trusts or of the charitable objects of the endowment, the learned Judge, whilst rejecting the Attorney-General's scheme, still held himself at liberty to sanction the scheme submitted by the Governors themselves proposing certain alteration to meet the altered circumstances of the time. Following that decision, I think we are entitled in the present case to come to the assistance of the Committee and to introduce certain changes which under the decisions it is no now open to the Committee to introduce, or which are admitted by them to be desirable. Further than this I do not feel justified in going. 7. The result is that the management will remain in the trustees subject to the statutory superintendence of the Temple Committee; and the proposed Board of Control must go. As regards th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore considering the merits of the case. 10. I shall first deal with Mr. Ganapathi Aiyar's contention. I agree with him that the expression "the nomination of the trustee, manager or superintendent thereof" in Section 3 includes the entire body of trustees, managers or superintendents See Perry v. Jackson (1792) 4 Term Reports. 516 S.C. 100 Eng. Rep. 1150. But it is doubtful whether it was competent to the Board of Revenue under Regulation VII of 1817 to divest themselves of all responsibility for management by handing over the affairs of a Devasthanam to hereditary trustees. The language of Section 13 of the Regulation which confers general powers to adopt measures for carrying out the objects of the trust must be restricted, to the cases for which a report is to be called for under the preceding sections. However that may be, I feel no doubt that the Committee has jurisdiction over this temple. There have been numerous suits to which the Committee and the trustees were parties in which it was held that the temple was under the jurisdiction of the Temple Committee, e.g. Seshadri Ayyangar v. Nataraja Ayyar (1898) I.L.R. 21 M. 179 Ganapathi Ayyar v. Sri Vedavyasa Alasing Bhatta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the charity under the Court's superintendence, which could not exist in any of the cases cited." In Attorney-General v. Brodie (1846) 4 M.I.A. 190, Lord Langdale pointed out that the Supreme Court had an equitable jurisdiction similar to and corresponding with the equitable jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Chancery in England over charities. There is no doubt that the mofussil Courts had similar powers. In Maharanee Shibessouree Debia v. Mothooranath Acharjo (1869) 13 M.I.A. 270, which was an appeal from a mofussil Court, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee proceeded on the footing that Civil Courts had jurisdiction to see that temple funds were properly applied. It is clear from the Charter granted to the East India Company that they were authorised "to judge all persons belonging to the said Governor and Company or that should live under them in all causes, whether civil or criminal according to the laws of the kingdom and to execute justice accordingly" (Charter of Charles II in 1661). This authority was confirmed by 'the subsequent Charters. Their history is fully set out in Cowell's Courts and Legislative authorities in India and in Ilbert's Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise a great deal. The language of the Charter and of the Act of Parliament commented on in that case are not before us. Moreover certain facts are mentioned in the judgment which rendered it inequitable for the Court to interfere. His Lordship says "To whatever lengths the Court may have gone, it has never assumed legislative authority." From the subsequent reference to the provision of the Attorney-General's scheme, it is apparent that the learned Judge held on the merits that that scheme should not be accepted. I do not think this case is authority for denying jurisdiction to the Courts altogether. In re Endowed Schools. Act 1869, In re Christ's Hospital (1890) 15 A.C. 172, does not carry the matter any further. Clephane v. The Lord Provost, &c, of Edinburgh (1869) L.R. 1 Sc. A. 417, only lays down that the purposes of the trust cannot be altered by the Courts. In Attorney-General v. The Dedham School (1857) 23 Beaven 350 S.C. 53 Eng. Rep. 138, the Master of the Bolls ruled that where the founder had conferred specific powers on a visitor regarding internal management, the Court should not interfere with such powers. In Attorney-General v. Dixie (1805) 13 Ves. J. 519 S.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es rise to the jurisdiction of the Court to protect that right. If the Act goes on to provide a particular remedy for the infringement of that right of property so created, that does not exclude the jurisdiction of this Court to protect the right of property, unless the Act in terms says so." In Attorney-General v. Wyggeston's Hospital (1849) 12 Beaven 113, S.C. 50 Eng. Rep. 1003, Lord Langdale, the Master of the Bolls had to consider the rights of a Governor of a hospital. His Lordship held that greater powers were given to him than was warranted by the original charter. Then he proceeds : "even if it should appear to be otherwise, and that this was within the power, nevertheless, if in the course of the 200 or 300 years, by acting upon the power, it has turned out, and is shown by experience, to be prejudicial to the objects of the charity, to the extent of giving an equal benefit to persons who are not objects of the charity - namely, to the lessees, for it comes to that - then I think that this Court could not avoid saying, that the circumstances were so changed, that the interests of the charity and of the hospital required a new mode of conducting the business and affairs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same time, I concede that in formulating a scheme, the courts should not unduly interfere with the powers entrusted to Committees. The cases quoted by the learned Yakil for the Committee establish that position. In re Sherewsbury Grammar School (1849) 1 Mac. & Gor. 324, The Attorney-General v. Aspinall (1837) 2 Myl. & Cr. 613, Attorney-General v. The Mayor, &c, of Dublin (1827) 1 Bli. (N.S.) 312, and Attorney-General v. Governors of the Foundling Hospital (1793) Ves. Jun. 42. The learned Vakil for the Sabha did not seriously contest this position. His argument was directed to showing that the Board of Revenue and their successor, the Committee had only certain limited powers, and that neither the Regulation nor the Act took away the plenary jurisdiction possessed by the Courts. I shall now very briefly examine the provisions of these two statutes mainly with a view to see how much of the scheme of the Subordinate Judge should be accepted. 18. The preamble to the Regulation refers to the ground for believing that the produce of the endowments "is ill many instances appropriated contrary to the intentions of the donors," and speaks of the duty of the Government to see to its proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est names. The 13th Section deals with the duties of the Board on the receipt of such reports. It seems to me that the clause "or make such other provision for the trust, etc.," should be confined to the appointment contemplated in Sections 11 and 12. As 1 said before, they do not seem to warrant the construction that the Board can appoint hereditary trustees by virtue of this clause so as to deprive themselves of all control over them. Section 14 gives a right of suit to persons aggrieved by the exercise of the powers vested in the Board. 19. Coming to the Act, it must be premised that it was not the intention of the legislature to give larger powers to the Committee than was possessed by the Board. Sections 3 and 7 entrust to the care of the Committees all the institutions which were under the control of the Board of Revenue. A feeble attempt was made to show that the Committee could hold possession of the trust property. Section 12 which refers to the transfer of the possession of properties does not provide for the vesting of the properties in the Committee. On the other hand Sections 11 and 13 which speak of the duties of the trustees to keep accounts make it clear that the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Code that this remedy can be invoked. In considering the details of the scheme Mr. Ganapathi Aiyar contended that as the body of trustees will be functus officio, if one member of it dies, there should be a Board of Control to avoid an interregnum. Santhalva v. Manjanna Shetty (1910) I.L.R. 34 M. 1, no doubt lays down that the death or removal of one of the members incapacitates the others from carrying on the duties of the Committee. With the greatest deference, I am unable to accept this conclusion. The decision in Doe v. Godwin 1 Dow and R. 259, quoted in Raghunandan Ramanuja Das v. Bibhuti Bhushan Mukeree (1911) I.L.R. 39 C. 304, was apparently not brought to the notice of the learned judges who decided Shanthalva v. Manjanna Shetty 1910) I.L.R. 34 M. 1. In my opinion the statutory body does not become extinct by reason of changes in its constitution. 21. As in my opinion, the Civil Court alone has power to frame a scheme, and its jurisdiction is not taken away by the creation of the Temple Committee, I shall now proceed to examine the details of the scheme. 22. The first question for consideration is whether there should be a Board of Control. In my view the powers int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Madhwa trustees by the Court is necessary. The Committee should have the same power with regard to them as they have with reference to the other three trustees. As regards Clause 12, in the view that we have taken about the office of the treasurer and having regard to the representations that have been made regarding the funds of the Devasthanam we are of opinion that instead of a treasurer, the trustees should be directed to appoint a cashier on a salary of Rs. 75-0-0 per mensem. Clause 1 which confers certain powers of supervision, and control on the treasurer should be modilied by investing the Board of Trustees with those powers. Clause 16 should be modified in a similar, manner. In addition to the provisious contained in the scheme we think it necessary that the, board of trustees should once a year prepare a balance sheet of the accounts of the Devasthanam and publish it for the information of the public in the local Gazette. The scheme should be modified as above indicated. As was done with reference to the Conjeevaram scheme we think liberty should be given to any of the trustees or any member of the Committee or to the 1st plaintiff in this case to move the Court for su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the 1st Chitrai. 6. No office holder of the temple or a member of the Temple Committee shall be appointed by the Committee as a member of the Board of Trustees. 7. (a) No one shall be eligible to be appointed by the Committee as a Trustee of the Devasthanam: 1. Who is under 25 years of age, 2. Who is an uncertificated bankrupt or an undischarged insolvent. 3. Who is suffering from unsoundness of mind, total blindness, total deafness, total dumbness, leprosy, or paralysis of such a nature which unfits him for work. 4. Who is a member of a joint family of which some other member is at the, time a member of either the Committee or of the Board of Trustees and 5. Who has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, or against whom orders under Sections 109, 110, Criminal Procedure Code have been passed. 7. (b) In the case of a rotation trustee who is a minor or who is subject to any of the disqualifications stated in 2, 3, and 5, the Committee may appoint from among the Sthalathars a competent person in his place. Cashier. 8. A. Cashier shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees on a salary of Rs. 75 per mensem and shall furnish such security as may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Gazette and in such other papers as they shall think fit. (e) The accounts of each fasli, together with the report of the auditor and the abstract of the accounts and the balance sheet, shall be exhibited at the Devasthanam office from the 15th October to 15th January following and also at the time of the Mukkoti festival at the temple premises and all worshippers of the temple shall be entitled to inspect the same at all reasonable times. 12. All surplus income shall be invested for the benefit of the temple by the Board of Trustees in accordance with the rules to be framed for the purpose. 13. (a) No immovable property of the temple shall be leased for more than three years without the sanction of the Committee. (b) All leases and sales shall be by public auction or in such other manner as may be provided for in the rules. 14. No jewels or other movable property shall be sold or otherwise alienated without the sanction of the Committee. 15. An inventory of the jewels and other properties shall be maintained by the Board of Trustees and shall be verified by the auditor every year. 16. Rules consistent with this scheme shall be framed by the District Court of Trioh....