SRI LA SRI SUBRAMANIA DESIGA GNANASAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI, TRUSTEE OF SRI VAIDYANATHASWAMI TEMPLE, VAITHEESWARANKOIL versus STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 08-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO

Judgment (excerpt)

934 
SRI LA SRI SUBRAMANIA DESIGA GNANASAMBANDA 
A 
PANDARA SANNADHI, TRUSTEE OF SRI VAIDYANA· 
THASWAMI TEMPLE, VAITHEESWARANKOIL 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
February 8, 1965 
(K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, 
R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 
1951 )-High Court framing scheme for administration of temple pro-
viding for appointment of Executive Officer-Whether such appointment 
C 
can be made where mismanagement not proved-whether CommissioneY1 
advice decisive or court•to decide on facts of each case. 
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 )<:altali 
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 
D 
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. 
E 
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 appoint-
ment of an Executive Officer. 
In a:meal, 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 ag~inst <he Trustee. 
erred in modifying the 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 
misoJanagement by the Trustee, but also so as to provide for 
a better administration of the temple. Furthermore the Commissioner was 
empovvcred to frame a scheme if he considered this desirab1e 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; 
F 
G 
H 
< 
. ' 
' 
B 
SUBllAMANIA DESIGA v. STATE (Subba Rao, I.) 
93$ 
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 impri· 
matur of the court was all that was contemplated by the Act. While a 
court should have due regard to the views ot the Commissioner wh'O is 
in close touch with the administration of temples, it could not be held 
that the court was relieved of its duty of asce:taining the oecessity for 
framing a scheme or to consider the propriety or advisibility 
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-CJ 
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner, or the Court, as 
the case may be, is not bound, in framing a scheme, to appoint an exe-
c 
cutive officer in every case; a case must be made out for such appoint· 
meot. [940 GJ 
D 
F 
G 
H 
(iii) In the present case the proposed executive officer would have 
the entire administration of the temple with hardly any power left to the 

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