http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: SRI LA SRI SUBRAMANIA DESIGA GNANASAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADRAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/1965

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BACHAWAT, R.S. RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1965 AIR 1683            1965 SCR  (2) 934

ACT: Madras  Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (XIX  of 1951) High Court framing scheme for administration of temple providing for appointment of Executive Officer-Whether  such appointment  can  be made where  mismanagement  not  proved- whether Commissioner’s advice decisive or court to decide on facts of each case.

HEADNOTE: By  virtue  of a scheme framed by the Madras High  Court  in 1919, the administration of a temple was placed in the hands of the Kattali Thambiran to be appointed by the appellant in his capacity as the trustee. In   June  1951,  the  Commissioner,  Hindu  Religious   and Charitable  Endowments,  Madras, filed a petition  under  s. 62(3)(a)  of  the  Madras  Hindu  Religious  and  Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, (Act No. XIX of 1951( in the court  of the Sub-Judge, for the modification of the 1919 scheme.  The petition contained various allegations of mismanagement  and of the full income of the temple not having been secured and safeguarded;  this was stated to be attributable  mainly  to defective machinery set up under the 1919 scheme and it  was suggested  that an executive officer should be appointed  to undertake the administration of the temple. The  Subordinate  Judge found that the  petitioner  had  not substantiated  any  of  the  allegations  made  against  the trustees and no case had been made out for amending the 1919 scheme so as to provide for the appointment of an  Executive Officer. In  appeal, although the respondent State did  not  question the  finding of the lower court that there was no  proof  of mismanagement,  the  High  Court  modified  the  scheme   by introducing  the suggested provision for the appointment  of an Executive Officer and by providing for the appointment of additional trustees, if necessary. It  was contended on behalf of the appellant 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

1919  scheme as above.  On the other hand, it was  urged  by the State that under the Act a scheme for administration  of a  temple could be framed or an earlier scheme  amended  not only  when there was mismanagement by the Trustee, but  also so as to provide for a better administration of the  temple. Furthermore the Commissioner was empowered to frame a scheme if   he   considered   this   desirable   for   the   proper administration of a religious institution and his opinion in this regard must be given decisive weight by the court  when amending a scheme.  In the present case, in view of the fact that  the temple owned extensive immovable properties,  some of which were required to be sold, and there were many other complicated  problems connected with the  administration  of the temple requiring attention, it was necessary to  appoint a  trained  Executive Officer in the best  interest  of  the temple                             935 HELD:     (i)  A  consideration  of the scheme  of  the  Act showed there was no justification for the contention that  a court should accept without scrutiny the view of the  Deputy Commissioner  that the scheme required modification  in  the manner  suggested by him and that the formal imprimaturs  of the court was all that was contemplated by the Act.  While a court   should  have  due  regard  to  the  views   of   the Commissioner  who is in close touch with the  administration of temples, it could not be held that the court was relieved of  its  duty of ascertaining the necessity  for  framing  a scheme  or to consider 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) having regard to the circumstances of each case. [939  H-940 A-C] (ii) 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;  a case must be made out for such appointment. [940 G] (iii)     In the present case the proposed executive officer would  have  the entire administration of  the  temple  with hardly  any  power  left to the  trustee.   Such  a  drastic provision might be necessary where the temple was mismanaged or there were other compelling circumstances requiring  such an  appointment.  But in view of the concurrent  finding  of fact  that the Commissioner had failed to establish  and  of the charges against the trustee, it could not be held that a case  had been made out for the appointment of an  Executive Officer  to practically displace the trustee.   Furthermore, there  was  no material before the court  to  ascertain  the complicated   nature  of  the  problems  of   administration requiring the attention of an executive officer, and in  any event  the  Commissioner bad ample powers under the  Act  to issue orders or give appropriate advice to the trustee. [944 E-G; 945 A-B] (iv) The  proposed provision in the scheme only conferred  a power  to  appoint additional trustees and  did  not  direct their appointment in present or even in future; such a power was  also available to the Commissioner under s. 39 and  the appellant  was not therefore in any way prejudiced  by  this provision. [945 E-F] (v)  Although  the  Commissioner was given wider  powers  in respect of the appointment of an Executive Officer under the Madras Act XXII of 1959, as the suit in the present case was filed in 1951 i.e. before the coming into force of that Act, the  appeal had to be decided on the basis of  circumstances prevailing in 1951. [945 H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1963. Appeal  from the judgment and decree dated February 7,  1958 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 318 of 1954. A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. A.   Ranqanatham  Chetty, A. Vedavalli and A V. Rangam,  for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba  Rao,  J. Sri Vaidyanathaswami Temple  at  Vaitheeswa- Sirkali Taluk, Thanjavur District, Madras State, is an 936 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 1842  the  British  Government, which  was  then administering the temple, handed  over  its management  to the Pandarasannadhi 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 11 of 1927 providing for  the  good administration   of  temples  and  their  endowments.    The Religious  Endowments Board functioning under the said  Act, 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 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 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 bad been made out  for amending the scheme and for the appoint- 937 ment  of an Executive Officer.  In the result  he  dismissed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

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  the  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. 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. The arguments of Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, learned  counsel for  the State, may be stated thus : Under the Act a  scheme for  the  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 938 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. To  appreciate  the contentions of the parties  it  will  be convenient at 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

purpose of such control he can pass any orders which he  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. 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 office-holders   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. The  general provisions of the Act may be sufficient in  the case  of temples which are properly administered; but  there may be a 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 939 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 be 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) to 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.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

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 940 him and that the formal imprimaturs 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.  Section 58 (2) of the Act reads :               "A scheme settled under sub-section (1) for  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 be fixed, to  be               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.  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",               941               and it shall be governed by the provisions  of               Act XIX of 1951 and the rules made thereunder.               2.    The properties, movables and immovables,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

             belonging  to  be  Devasthanam  and  that  may               hereafter be acquired by the Devasthanam shall               vest in the deity of Sri Vaithianathaswami.               3.    The  administration of  the  Devasthanam               and   its   properties  shall  vest   in   the               Pandarasannadhi at the Dharmapuram Adhinam for               the time being, who shall be the "trustee"  of               the Devasthanam.               4.    On the application of the  Commissioner,               the  Court  shall have the power  to  add  two               additional trustees if at some future time  it               is found that it is necessary to do so in  the               interest of the Devasthanam on account of  the               mismanagement  by  the  Pandarasannadhi,   the               Trustee.               5.    All the affairs of the Devasthanam, such               as   the  receipt  of  income,  incurring   of               expenditure,  management of the property,  the               performance  of the worship and the  festivals               of the temple, bringing and defending suits on               behalf of the Devasthanam, shall be  conducted               by the Executive Officer under the supervision               of the trustee, the mamool religious functions               of the Kattalai Thambiran being reserved.               6.    The  Trustee shall in April  every  year               prepare a budget of the income and expenditure               and  such  budget  will  be  governed  by  the               provisions  of  Madras Act XIX of  1951.   The               Trustee  shall be given a discretion to  spend               any  amount not exceeding Rs. 2,000/-  (Rupees               two  thousand) every year in addition  to  the               budgeted expenditure.               7.    (a)  The Trustee shall from out  of  the               five  names  sent to him by  the  Commissioner               choose  one  of them for  appointment  as  the               Executive Officer of the Devasthanam and  such               person shall be appointed by the  Commissioner               as  Executive Officer and shall be in  manage-               ment of the Devasthanam and its properties  in               the  day-to-day administration  including  the               maintenance  of accounts, keeping of  records,               making  collections  and’  disbursements,  and               shall have the control of the temple servants.               942               (b)   The  Executive Officer shall be a  first               class  Executive  Officer, and shall  be  paid               such salary and employed on such terms as  the               Commissioner  may from time to time  prescribe               and  his powers and duties shall be  regulated               by Madras Act XIX of 1951 and the rules framed               thereunder.               8.    The  Pandarasannadhi shall  select  from               among   the  Thambirans  of  the   Dharmapuram               Adhinam  a Kattalai Thambiran competent to  do               the  religious functions of the Trustee.   The               Pandarasannadhi  will be responsible  for  all               acts of the Kattalai Thambiran as a master for               the acts of the servant.               9.    The  Kattalai Thambiran shall attend  to               the performance in proper manner and in proper               times  of the daily pujas and worship  and  of               the  monthly  and  yearly  festivals  of   the               Devasthanam   under   the   supervision    and               direction of the Executive Officer.               10.   (a) The matam building belonging to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             Devasthanam in Vaitheeswarankoil shall be  set               apart for the residence of Kattalai Thambiran,               and a sum of Rs. 501- a month shall be paid to               him for his maintenance and personal expenses.               He  will also be entitled to the enjoyment  of               one veli of maniam land, as in the  pre-scheme               days.               (b)   The  present treasurer and  shroff  will               continue  in  office on the present  scale  of               pay, and they shall work under the  directions               of  the  Executive Officer and shall  do  such               work as is assigned to them.  The future trea-               surer  and  shroff will be  appointed  by  the               Commissioner.  The old scale of salary of  the               treasurer  is reduced to the present scale  of               Rs. 100-5-125.                11.  The  Executive Officer shall,  with  the               permission of the Commissioner, sell in public               auction  the  jewels and  ornaments  gold  and               silver  coins  not in  circulation  and  other               metallic   objects  in  the  hundials   except               current coins and any other offerings.               12.   The  Trustee  shall place  one  or  more               hundials, as occasions might require, for  the               deposit of voluntary and compulsory  offerings               by  the worshipers.  Each hundial shall be  of               copper brass or any other materials, and shall               have metalic covering with an aperture.   Each               of  such hundials shall be under  double  lock               and               943               sealed  by  the  Trustee  and  the   Executive               Officer.   One set of keys shall be  with  the               Executive  Officer  and  other  set  with  the               Trustee.   The hundials shall be opened  every               day  or at such intervals as the  Trustee  may               direct  in  the  presence  of  the   Executive               Officer  and  the Kattalai Thambiran  and  the               worshippers of the temple and the  collections               shall be kept by the Executive Officer.               13.   In  the  matter of  accounts,  preparing               abstracts,  and receipts and  disbursement  of               the   Devasthanam  as  also  of   preparation,               publication   and  audit  of   accounts,   the               Executive   Officer  and  the  Trustee   shall               observe the procedure prescribed in Madras Act               XIX of 1951 and the rules made thereunder.               14.   The accounts of the Devasthanam shall be               open  to  inspection  by  any  person   having               interest,  on  his giving one  day’s  previous               notice  to the Executive Officer and paying  a               fee  of Rs. 51- for each day or part of a  day               in advance of such inspection.  The person  so               inspecting  may  bring to the  notice  of  the               Commissioner   any   irregularity   and    the               Commissioner  may pass such orders as  he  may               think necessary.               15.   All the records of the Devasthanam shall               be kept in proper order in the premises of the               Devasthanam   provided  for  the  purpose   in               Vaitheeswarankoil, and an accurate list of all               records should be maintained.  There shall  be               a record-keeper who shall be in charge of  all               the records and he shall not allow any  record               to be taken out without the written  authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

             of  the Executive Officer and without  getting               proper vouchers.               16.   Power  is  reserved to  the  Trustee  to               apply  to the Commissioner for  permission  to               use  the surplus funds on such  religious  and               charitable  and other purposes as may tend  to               promote  the cause of the institution such  as               an  Agama  Patasala  or  Thevara  Patasala  or               Adhyayana  Patasala/or such other purposes  as               are prescribed by the Act.               17.   The Trustee shall have the discretion to               make   jewels,  vahanams,  etc.,  or   to   do               thiruppani work for the Devasthanam out of the               surplus  income of each year  after  obtaining               the  sanction  of  the  Commissioner  and   in               accordance  with the provisions of Act XIX  of               1951,  and  the rules  made  thereunder.   The               Trustee shall have                                    944               a  discretion  to spend Rs.  2,000/-  annually               over  and  above  the  sanctioned  amount   if               necessary and if funds are available.               18.   The Trustee may with the sanction of the               Commissioner  invest the surplus funds of  the               Devasthanam in such  manner  as is  prescribed               under Madras Act XIX of 1951   and  the  rules               made thereunder.               19.   There  shall  be  no  money  dealing  or               transactions  between the Devasthanam  Trustee               and  the  Adhinam  or  any  of  the   Kattalai               charities    or   trusts   managed   by    the               Pandarasannadhi  of Dharmapuram or any  person               under his orders.               20.   Save  as expressly provided herein,  the               administration of the temple shall be governed               by the provisions of the  Madras  Act  XIX  of               1951 and the rules made thereunder. It will be seen from the aforesaid provisions of the  scheme that  it introduces an Executive Officer to be appointed  by the  Commissioner and removable by him; his salary is  fixed by the Commissioner and his powers and duties are  regulated by  the Act and the rules framed thereunder.  In  substance, he  is  a  servant  of the Commissioner  and  is  under  his control.  He is to be in charge of the entire administration of  the temple.  Nothing can be done in the  temple  without his  permission.   It is true that he  functions  under  the supervision  of the Trustee; but there is an essential  dis- tinction   between  supervision  and  management.   If   the Executive Officer disobeys him the Pandarasannadbi cannot do anything,  except perhaps to complain to  the  Commissioner. Such  a drastic provision may be necessary in a  case  where the temple is mismanaged or if there are other circumstances which  compel such an appointment.  But there is  concurrent finding  of  fact  in this case that  the  Commissioner  has failed  to  establish  any of the charges  levelled  by  him against the Trustee.  It is not, therefore, possible to hold that  any case has been made out for the appointment  of  an Executive Officer who practically displaces the Trustee. Mr.  A. Ranganadham Chetty says that the appointment of  the Executive  Officer is necessary in view of the great  things which  have  to be done in the temple, like  sale  of  3,000 acres  of land to the tenants under the new  legislation  at agreed  prices,  checking cash  collections,  including  the hundial collections, doing away with the ad hoc  auctioneers appointed by the Commissioner

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

945 from time to time, and for auctioning leases, and all  kinds of  properties  like  jewellery, lands,  etc.   We  have  no material  before us to find out what is the complicated  and difficult  action the Trustee has to take in the  matter  of selling  3,000  acres of land to the tenants under  the  new legislation  at  agreed  prices.   If  there  is  any   such difficulty, the Commissioner has ample powers under the  Act to  issue  orders or at any rate advice the Trustee  in  the matter  of disposal of such lands.  Other  difficulties  are not  such as to necessitate the appointment of an  Executive Officer  practically  displacing the  Trustee.   Further  it appears from the record that the present Kattalai  Thambiran is  a  legally  qualified person and he  can  ordinarily  be expected to look after these things with appropriate  expert advice.  We do not think any case has been made out for  the appointment of the Executive Officer. The  next objection raised by Mr. Viswanatha Sastry  relates to cl. (4) of the scheme, which reads               "On  the application of the Commissioner,  the               Court   shall  have  the  power  to  add   two               additional trustees if at some future time  it               is found that it is necessary to do so in  the               interest of the Devasthanam on account of  the               mismanagement  by  the  Pandarasannadhi,   the               Trustee." Clause 4 of the scheme only confers a power and it does  not direct the appointment of additional trustees in presenti or even  in  future.  Indeed, s. 39 of the Act was  amended  in 1954  whereunder  such  a power is  conferred  even  on  the Commissioner.   We do not think the appellant is in any  way prejudiced by the said clause.  Therefore, it may stand.  As we are deleting the clause appointing the Executive Officer, there  will  be,  consequential amendments  in  the  various clauses of the scheme framed by the High Court. It  is brought to our notice that in 1959 the  Madras  Hindu Religious  and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XXII of  1959) was passed by the Madras Legislature.  Under s. 45  thereof, the  Commissioner  is given a plenary power  to  appoint  an Executive  Officer  to  any temple  and,  therefore,  it  is argued,  this Court shall not interfere with the  clause  of the  scheme  providing for the appointment of  an  Executive Officer to the temple in question.  The said Act was  passed subsequent to the filing of the suit.  We are deciding  this appeal  on the basis of the circumstances obtaining  in  the year 1951 when the suit was filed.  It may be 946 that  under the new Act the Commissioner has  higher  powers than  he  had under the 1951 Act and subsequent  events  may call  for the exercise of those powers.  Our  judgment  will not  preclude the Commissioner to take any action under  the new   Act   as  the  circumstances   demand.    With   these observations we shall proceed to modify the scheme framed by the High Court. In the scheme framed by the High Court, clauses 1, 2, 3,  4, 6,  10(a), 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 will be retained; clause  7 will  be  deleted; and the other clause will be  amended  as under               Clause  5.  The words "the  Executive  Officer               under the supervision of’ will be omitted.               Clause   8.  The  word  "religious"  will   be               omitted.                Clause  9. The words "under  the  supervision               and  direction of the Executive Officer"  will               be omitted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

             Clause 10(b) shall read :               The  treasurer  and shroff  will  continue  in               office  on the present scale of pay, and  they               shall  work.  under  the  directions  of   the               Trustees.               Clause  11.   The  words  "Executive  Officer"               shall be replaced by the word "Trustee".               Clause 12 shall read :               The Trustee shall place one or more  hundials,               as occasions might require, for the deposit of               voluntary  and  compulsory  offerings  by  the               worshippers.  Each hundial shall be of  copper               brass  or any other materials, and shall  have               metallic  covering with an aperture.  Each  of               such  hundials shall be under double lock  and               sealed  by the Trustee or his nominee and  the               Kattalai Thambiran.  One set of keys shall  be               with the Kattalai Thambiran and the other  set               with the Trustee or his nominee.  The hundials               shall be opened every day or at such intervals               as  the Trustee may direct in the presence  of               the Kattalai Thambiran and the worshippers  of               the  temple and the collections shall be  kept               by the Trustee.               Clause 13.  The words "Executive Officer" will               be   substituted   by  the   words   "Kattalai               Thambiran".                                    947               Clause 14.  The words "Executive Officer" will               be   substituted   by  the   words   "Kattalai               Thambiran".               Clause 15.  The words "Executive Officer" will               be   substituted   by  the   words   "Kattalai               Thambiran".               In the result, the decree of the High Court is               modified  as.  aforesaid.   The  parties  will               their respective costs throughout.               Decree modified. LASup.Cl./65-2500--24-12-65-GIPF.