CHAIRMAN MADAPPA versus M. N. MAHANTHADEVARU AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 11-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
. c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHAIRMAN MADAPPA 
v. 
M. N. MAHANTHADEVARU AND OTHERS 
October 11, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH, ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.J 
151 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) ss. 91(1), cl.(!), 92-
Religz'ous Endowment-Scheme Settled appointing joint managers with 
liberty to seek court's directions on necessity--One manager seeks direC9-
tions-Whether court can direct-cl. (f) if bars . 
In a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree was 
passed settling a scheme in respect of a mu th, Under para ( 11) of the 
scheme two persons were appointed as joint managers, and under para. 
(12) they were given liberty to apply for directions to the District Court as 
and when occasion arose for carrying out the scheme. The respondent-
one of the two managers appointed under the scheme, made an applica· 
tion to the District Judge seeking direction to sell cattle and cultivation 
rights of lands belonging to the mulh. In spite of objections by tin appel· 
!ant, the other manager, the District Judge directed the sale. 
The 
appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court. 
In appeal to this 
Court the appellant contended that in view of s. 92(1)cl. (f) 
of the 
Code of Civil Procedure the District Judge had no jurisdiction to make 
the order; on the other hand the respondent relied on paras ( 11) and 
(12) of the scheme to support his contention that the District Judge had 
jurisdiction. 
HELD : It is open in a suit under s. 92 of the Code for the settlement 
of a scheme to provide in the scheme itself for modifying it whenever neces· 
sary by inserting a clause to that effect. A suit for the settlement of a 
scheme is analogous to an administration suit and so long as the modifica· 
tion in the scheme is for !he purpose of administration such modification 
could be made by an application under the relevant clause of the scheme, 
without the necessity of a separate suit under s. 92 of the Code the 
provisions of which were not violated by such a procedure. [153 G-H] 
Raja Anandrao v. Shamrao, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 930, followed. 
The District Judge had jurisdiction to give directions under paras (l l) 
and (12) of the scheme, as these directions were of the nature of ordinary 
administration of trust-property and they did not fall within cl. (f) in 
s. 92(1) of the Code. [155 BJ 
Clause (f) in s. 92(1) cannot be read in such a way as to hamper 
the ordinary administration of trust properties by trustees or managers 
thereof; and so .there can be no invalidity in a provision in the scheme 
which directed the trustee or rnanag·ers, or even one out of two managers 
when they cannot agree, to obtain directions of the court with respect 
to the disposal or alienation of the property belonging to the ,trust. Clause 
(f) did not apply to the circumstances -0f this case and no suit under s. 92 
was necessary in consequence. [157 E·F] 
Whether the direction could be sought by persons other than truste"" 
or man~gers was not considered. [157 CJ 
1 52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 2 S.C.R .. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 957 of 
A 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
April 15, 1961 of the Mysore High Coun in Civil Revision Peti-
tion No. 499 of 1960. 
V. Krishnamurti and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
8. D. Jain, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
Wanchoo, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Mysore High Court. Brief facts necessary for 
present purposes are these. There is a muth in village Davanur. c: 
A suit was brought in 1942 under s. 92 of the Civil Proceduro 
Code for framing a scheme for the management of the muth. A 
decree was passed on March 17, 1948 by the High Court by 
which a scheme was settled and two persons were appointed as 
joint managers thereunder. In 1959 the two managers were the 
appellant Madappa who was the chairman and the respondent 
D· 
Mahanthadevaru. 
On May 12, 1959, the respondent made an 
application to the Additional District Judge, Mysore, in which he 
said that there wern more than 100 heads of cattle, belonging to the 
muth. 
But the estimated income of the properties was barely 
sufficient to meet the cost of worship of the deity and that no 
funds were available to maintain the cattle. He also said that it E: 
was unnecessary and expensive to incur the feeding charges and 
pay for the staff needed to take care of the cattle. He therefore

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.