SRI VEDARANEESW ARARSWAMY DEVASTHANAM versus THE DOMINION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 15-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
87 
SRI VEDARANEESW ARARSW AMY 
DEVASTHANAM 
v. 
THE DOMINION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANOHOO, JJ.) 
Hindu Temple-Manager agreeing to transfer temple property 
on fixed annual compensation-Transaction, if a permanent lease-
Construction-Rule. 
The appellant Devasthanam had certain properties, granted 
to it in inam by the Rajas of Tanjore centuries ago, which com-
prised salt pans. After the passing of Regulation l of 1805, 
which prohibited manufacture of salt except on account of the 
Government or with their express sanction, the East India Com-
pany in 1806 took over possession of those properties and the 
agreement between the parties as recorded in the order passed 
on behalf of the Board of Revenue, was as follows,-
" As the Government have taken charge of the pagoda salt pans 
and Sea Customs of Thopputhurai, belonging to the above 
temple, the sum of 1848 Pagodas shall be given to the temple 
annually in cash from the treasury being calculated on the ave-
rage amount of IO years' revenue besides which every possible 
assistance will be given to the temple." 
The previous correspondence between the Collector and the 
Board of Revenue showed that the properties were intended to 
be acquired permanently for the purpose of manufacturing salt 
and compensation was determined on that basis. From 1806 till 
1941 the appellant allowed the company and its successors, the 
respondents land 2, to be in quiet possession of the properties 
in dispute on receipt of the said annual compensation. Its case, 
negatived both by the trial Court as well as the High Court in 
appeal, was that the agreement represented a lease from year to 
year and it was contended on its behalf in this Court that in 
~· 
construing the document regard must be had to the limited 
• 
powers ot a manager of a Hindu Temple to alienate trust pro-
perty and he must be held to have intended to act within his 
powers and not beyond them. 
.. 
Held, that the transaction in question was a permanent 
lease and the appeal must fail. 
Although it is indisputable that in construing a document 
executed by the manager of a Hindu temple the fair and reason-
able rule would be to treat it as executed in pursuance of his 
legitimate authority and not in breach of it, that rule could have 
no application in the instant case, for the facts that more than 
a century had admittedly elapsed since the document in ques-
tion had been executed and, further, that the then manager, 
February IS. 
' 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962) 
I96I 
faced by the prohibition of the manufacture of salt by Regula-
. 
tion r of r805, had no option, in the interest of the Devastha-
Sri 
uam itself, but to enter into the agreement in order that he 
Vedaraneeswarar- could provide £or a recurring income to the ternple, could not be 
swamy 
ignored. 
Dt-vasthana1n 
. 
. 
v. 
Bawa Magmram Sitaram v. Kasturbai Manibhai, (1921) L.R. 
The Dominion of 49 I.A. 54, applied. 
India & .4nr. 
Maharanee Shibessouree Debia v. Mothooranath Acharjo, (1869) 
L.R. 13 Moo. I.A. 270, Nainapillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan 
Chettiar, (1923) L.R. 51 I.A. 83 and Palaniappa Chetty v. Deiva-
sikamony Pandara, (1917) L.R. 44 I.A. r47, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
371 of 1956. 
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated August 
28, 1953, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 262 of 
1949. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Sundaralingam and 
B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellant. 
Ganapathy Iyer, V. A. Seyid Muhamad and T. M. 
Sen, for the respondent No. 1. 
1961. ]'ebruary 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Gajendrngadkar ]. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal has been brought 
with a certificate issued by the Madras High Court and 
it arises out of a suit filed by the Managing Trustee of 
the appellant Sri Vedaraneeswararswamy Devastha-
nam against respondents 1 and 2 the Dominion of India 
and the Province of Madras respectively. In this suit 
the appellant claimed a declaration that the properties 
in suit belong to the appellant and asked for a direc-
tion against respondent 1 to put the appellant in 
possession of the same. A further direction was 
claimed against the said respondent calling upon it to 
account for and pay to the appellant mesne profits 
past and future and an alternative plea was also made 
by which the court was requested to determine the 
proper rent payable by the said respondent to the 
appellan

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