SRI VEDAGIRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMI TEMPLE versus INDURU PATTABHIRAMI REDDY

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 06-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI VEDAGIRI LAKSHMI '.'IARASIMHA SWAMI TEMPLE 
A 
V. 
INDURL" PAITABHIRAMI REDDY 
September 6, 1966 
(K. SUBBA RAo, C. J. AND J. M. SHELAT, J.J 
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Ac1 ( 19 of 1951 ), 
Chaps<r YI/ and s. 93-Ex-lruslees' liability to accoun1-Scope of-Suit 
.against ex·trwtees for rendition of accounts-Main1ainabi/ity. 
The trustees of a temple filed a suit for rendition of accounts ·against 
.the ell·truslces, in respe<;t of their management of the temple. 
The trial 
court and the first appellate court. in their discretion and having regard 
to the circumstances of the case, directed the defendants to render accounts 
for about six years prior to the plaintitrs taking poso ... ion of tho temple. 
The Higb Court held that the defendams were not obliged to render ac· 
counts in the absence of allegations of acts of negligenee or wilful default, 
and that, s. 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitahlc Endow· 
me<Jts Act, 1951, was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( i) No trustee can get a dischar~ unless be renders account 
of his management irrespective of any questton of negligence or wilful 
·defaul~ The defendants, therefore, were liable to render accounts of their 
management lo the plaintiffs. As regards the period for which they should 
ho made liable to re.oder accounts, it would depend upon the facts of eocb 
·case, and there was no justification for interfering with the discretion of 
the lower courts in that regard. 
[284 O.E; 286 CJ 
Case law referred to. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(ii) Section 93 is not a bar to the maintainability of the suit. 
(292 Al 
The section only imposes a restriction on .suils or other legal p'roceed-
ings in respect of matters for which a provision has been made in the Act. 
F 
The legislative history of the section shows that even in regard to suits 
·or other legal proceedings relating to administration or management of 
religious institutions. restriction is imposed only in respect of matters 
for which a provision is made in the Act. It does not bar suits under 
the general law which do not fall within the scope of any of the sections 
of the Act. Chapter VII of the Act, on which reliance was placed by the 
defendants as providing a complete machinery for deciding disput .. in 
regard to accounts, has no bearing on the question of the liability of an 
G 
ex-trustee to render account of his management to the present trustee and 
does not provide for determining or deciding a dispute in respect of such 
rendition of accounts. [287 F; 289 C; 291 H; 292 A] 
Case law referred to. 
CivJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION! Civil Appeal No. 605 of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
April 12. 196~ of the Andhra PradPsh High Ccu ·tin S.A. )':o. 124 
of 1959. 
H 
A 
-~ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
VEDAGIRI TEMPLE v. I. P. REDDY (Subba Rao, C.J.) 
281 
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant. 
H. R. Gokha/e, S., P. R. Vital Rao, K. Rajendra Chaudhari 
and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sobba Rao, C.J. This appeal by special leave raises the ques-
tion whether a suit would lie at the instance of ~he present trustees 
of a temple for rendition of accounts of the management of the 
temple by the ex-trustees. 
The appellant is Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami 
temple situated at Narasimhulykonda, Nellore taluk, in the State 
of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its trustees. The respondent 
and two others were non-hereditary trustees of the said temple 
and functioned as such for a term of five years ending with Janu, 
ary 1951. The respondent was the managing trustee during that 
period. The new trustees were appointed by order of the Hindu 
Religious Endowments Board dr.ted January 21, 1951 ; but they 
were able to obtain possession of the temple only on July 21, 1952. 
They, representing the temple, filed 0.S. No. 246 of 1953 in the 
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore against the respondent 
and others for the following three reliefs : (1) to direct all or such 
of the defendants as may be found liable to render a true and proper 
account of their management of the temple and its properties since 
the date of their functioning as trustees and to pay over to the 
new trustees such amounts as may be found due ; (2) to assess 
the amount due to the temple as a result of the various acts of malfe-
asanee, misfeasance and non-feasance of the defendants 1

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