SAMBUDAMURTHI MUDALIAR versus STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 15-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

424 
SAMBUDAMURTHI MUDALIAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR. 
September 15, 1969 
(J. C. ~HAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
B 
M.adras Hindu Religious and ChGritable Endowments Act (19 of 1951), 
.s. 6(9)-Trustee of temple elected for fixed period by members of com. 
munity who established temple-If hereditary trustee. 
The appellant was elected as a trustee of a 
temple for 
one ye.ar. 
The temple was founded two hundred years ago by the members of the 
community and according to the usage of the temple, the trustees were 
C 
·elected for one year, at a meeting of the members of the <"Ommunity. 
On th" question whether the appellant has a hereditary trustee, because 
he was, under s. 6 (9) of the Madras Hindu Religious and 
Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1951, the 'trustee of a religious institution succession to 
·whose office is regulated by usage', 
HELD : The phrase 'succession to whose office is regulated by usage' 
)) 
·would only apply when the ordinary rules of succession under the Hindu 
Jaw are modified by usage, and succession has to be determined in accor-
·dance with the modified rules. The office of a heredita'ry trustee is in the 
nature of property. Succession in relation to property implies passing of 
•On interest from one person '1o another. [428 C-D] 
In the present case, the election to .the office was for a fixed period 
of one yGar. 
In such a case, it is not possible to say thefe is a succession 
E 
io.the office, be.cause: (a) on the efflux of the period for which one trustee 
is appointed~ there is a vacancy and another is elected to that vacancy, and 
(b) since there is a possibility of the same frustee being tP~lected, an 
impossible legal position arises in which a person could be a successor 
of himself. [429 F"H] 
Jn re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1941 [1941] F.C.R. 12, 
•Gat!fsh_Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary, 63 LA. 448, Bhabatarini v. Asha/ata, 
F 
70 I.A. 57, Angurbala Mullick v. Dehabrata Mullick, [1959) S.C.R. 1125. 
1134 and Sita/ Das v. Sam Ram, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 606 applie3. 
Shri Mahant Paramananda Das GoJwami v. Radhakrishna Das, 51 
M.L.J. 258, referred to. 
State of Madras v. R<makrishna, I.LR. [1957] Mad. 1084, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1671 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 31, 1965 
"Of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 276 oi. 1962. · 
G 
M. K. Ramamurthi, Vineet Kumar, J, Ramamurthy and Shya-
H 
mala Pappu, for the appellant. 
A. V. Rangam, for the respQndents. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SAMBUDAMURTH! v. MADRAS (Ramaswami, J.) 
425 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
This appeal is brought by certificate froni 
the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 31, 1965 
in A.S. No. 276 of 1962. 
The appellant brought the suit in O.S. No. 3 of 1961 in the 
Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam for setting aside the 
order dated May 10, 1960 of respondent No. 1 the Commissioner 
of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras who had 
affirmed earlier the order of the second respondent, the Deputy 
Commissioner, holding that the trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil 
in Manjakollai village was not hereditary. 
The appellant was 
elected as a trustee by the Sengunatha Mudaliars of Manjakollai 
village at a meeting held on June 27, 1957. According to the 
appellant the temple was founded two hundred years ago by the 
members of his community and since then the management of the 
temple and its affairs was always vested in the community of the 
Sengunatha Mudaliars and no person other than the elected trustee 
had at any time the right of management and control of the tem-
ple. The appellant said that the temple was declared as an "exem-
pted" temple under the provisions of Madras Act 1 of 1925. The 
case of the appellant was that the trusteeship of the temple was 
'·hereditary". 
The respondents, however, took a different view 
and proceeded on the !Jasis that trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil 
was not hereditary. The Subordinate Judge held that the appel-
lant was a hereditary trus_tee and the suit was not barred by limita-
tion. 
The respondents took the matter in appeal to the Madras 
High Court which by its judgment dated March 31, 1965 allowed 
the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, 
Nagapattinam. 
Section 6, sub-s. (9) of Madras Act 19 of 1951 states: 
"In this l}ct, unless there is anything repugnant in 
the subject or context-
\9) 'hereditary trustee' 

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