D. SRINIVASAN versus THE COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 1031 · Decided: 17-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
D. SRINIVASAN 
A 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 17, 2000 
(M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.J 
B 
Hindu Law-T.N. Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Act 2 of 
1927r--Section 9{6)--Definition of ''hereditary trustee''--l'ersons nominated 
under a Will as successor and was given absolute povn:r to administer the c 
temple during the commencement of Act 2 of 1927-Held, such successor 
would be a hereditary trustee-l'ersons nominated on the Board of Trustees 
by such successor by way of a further Will would also be hereditary trnstee 
during the subsistence of Act 2 of 1927-Later on, Act 1927 was repealed by 
1951 Act which provided for a restrictive definition of 'hereditary trustee" taking 
away the existing rights of such trustees-Held, such trustees who were them-
D 
selves not hereditary trustee after the coming into being of 1951 Act, nominated 
persons on the Board of Trustees or their nominated persons co-opted as 
trustees would not be regarded as "hereditary trustee~·"--T.N. Hindu Religious 
Endowments Act, 1951, Sections 5, 6(9) and lOrT.N. Hindu Religious En-
dowments Act, 1959, Section 6( ur--Trusts. 
E 
Words and phrases-"Hereditary trustee"-Meaning of in the context of 
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1959. 
Statute-Repeal of-Held, rights vested in any pers01i or authority under 
a repealed statute are not to be deemed to be interfered with by the repealing 
F 
statute which expressly or by necessary implication illterferes with the rights 
_j 
accrued to any person or body under the repealed statute. 
Original founder of a temple nominated onll! V to be his success11r 
and a Will was executed in his favour in 1915, giving him absolute power 
to administer the temple.V executed a Will in 1941 under which he vested G 
the administrution of the temple in a Board of Five Trustees and further 
provided that the vacancies in future were to be filled in by co-optioll by 
the remaining Trustees and thl! persons to be selected were to be residents 
of the locality in W!>hich the temple was situate. After the death of V in 1943, 
five Trustees nominated by him came into the management to administer H 
1031 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A the temple. After the death or five Trustees nominated ,by V, others were 
co-opted as trustees. 
An application was filed by the then trustees btfore the Deputy 
Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 63(b) of the T.N. Hindu 
B Religious Endovmients Act, 1959 (1959 Act) for a declaration that they\'l-ere 
hereditary trustees. But this applicati11n \'l'US dismissed. An app~I was 
filed Inf ore the Commissioner and the same also dismissed. In 1971 a suit 
v;as filed by the said Trustees for a declaration that the order passed by 
the Commissioner \'l"ilS illeual and for a further declaration thl!.t th~ ofilce 
11f Trusteiship of the temp!e was hereditary. Trial court decnied the suit 
C and declared the plalntilTs therein as "hereditary trustees". Appeal filed by 
the Commissioner Vi'llS allowed by the High Court and the same confirmed 
in LP A. He~ce this uppeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the temple was already 
D declared an ''Excepted temple" under Section 9(5) of the T.N. Hindu 
Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (1927 Act) in 1935 inasmuch succession 
. to the trusteeship l>as as provided by the founder and that order was 
binding in the present proceedings; and that the definition of "hereditary 
trustees" in Section 9(6) of 1927 Act Vl'dS wider than the one contained In 
E Section 6(11) of the T.N. Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1959 (1959 
Act) inasmuch as even a person nominated by the trustees for the time 
being, came within the definition or "hereditary trustee" under Section 9(6) 
of 1927 Act, though not under 1951 and 1959 Acts. 
It was contended by the respondents that even if the definition or 
F "hereditary trustee" under Section 9(6) of 1927 Act was wider and could 
take in a person who was nominated by the trustees, still the appellant 
could not take any benefit from the said provision as 1927 Act was repealed 
by 1951 Act; :lmt the definition of "hereditary trustee" under Section 6(9) 
of the 1951 Act was restrictive and did not apply to m1minated trustees, 
G that similar was the position under Section 6(11) of the 1959 Act definins 
"hereditary trustee" and hence th:: person filled into the past 1951 vacan· 
cies in the Board of five Trustees would not be described as "hereditary 
trustees"; and that

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