B.K.C. MURUGA KONAR (DEAD)) BY LRS. & ORS.versusV. SETHA KONE & ORS.

        B.K.C. MURUGA KONAR (DEA!)) BY LRS. & ORS.
                              v.                                                A
                   V. SETIIA KONE & ORS.

                            SEl'TEMBER 1, 1989

                [M.H. KANIA AND T.K. TIIOMMEN, JJ.]

         Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
    1959-Sections 6(20) and 108-Suit for rendition of Accounts in respect
    of "Temple"-Private Temple-Public religioiis endowment-What
    is-Suit whether maintainable .
•
          This is defendant's appeal by Special Leave. Respondents 1 to 5 c
    aloogwith one other person ftled a representative suit on behalf of
    themselves and other' members of Thousaod-Y adhava Community
    against the appellant No. I-Defendant for an order directing him to
    render true accounts of the management of the properties of the
    Thousaod-Y adhava Community including the Sri Ramasami Sri D
    Navoeetha Krishnasami i>evasthaoam Temples and their properties_
    and pay to them tl!_e amount a..:ertain~d as payable on such rendition
    of accounts. The appellant was the Trustee of the said temples. The case
    of the plaintiffS-1"\'Spondeots was that the said temples were private
    religions trusts and the appellant as trostee had committed several acts
    of mismanagement in respect of the proyerties.                           E

          The appellant defendant deriled those allegations and contended
    that the suit as framed was not maintainable in view of the provisions of
    the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
    1959.
                                                                              F
          The Tria! Court djsmissed the suit. It held that the said temples
    were not.'~tivate tj!mples belonging to the said community, and that
•   both the· temples were covered by the provisions of section 6(20) of the
    Act, and as such the suit was barred by tl:e provisions of the Act and
    thus not maintainable. The plaintiffs preferred appeal to the High
    Court against the' o~der of the Trial Court. Th~ High Court allowed the G
    plaintiffs appeal and passed a preliminary decree against the appellant
    No. I-defendant for rendition of accounts while dismissing the suit in
    other respects. The High Court took the view that a.party seeking relief
    of accounting cannot approach the Deputy Commissioneror any other
    authority under the Act and hence the Civif Court was not barred either .
    expressly
     .•
               or by necessary implication from enteriaining the suit so far H
                                        I
      2          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

      as it was for accounting. However the High Court did not decide the              '
A-    question as to whether the Temples ·were private temples or could be
      regarded as .Public religious endowments. Defendant No. l filed the
      appeal, by special leave.

            Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

            HELD: There is no doubt that in respect of a public trust,
      beneficiaries as a class can file a suit against the Trustee for rendition of
      accounts subject to the baiimposed by Section 92 of the Code of Civil
      Procedure 1908. [SH; 6A]                                                        ·•

            Chapter VIII of the Act has no bearing on the question of the
c liability of a trustee to render accounts to the beneficiaries as a group or
      class and it does not provide for determining or deciding a dispute in
      respect of such rendition of accounts and hence, Section 108 of the said
      Act does not bar a suit like the one filed by Respondent No. 1. [6H; 7A-B]

D          Sri Vedagiri Laxmi Narasimha Swami Temple v. Induru Patta-
      bhirami Reddy, [ 1967] 1SCR280, referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1045-
      of 1972.                             -

           From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.1972 of the Madras
      High Court in Appeal No. 549 of .1963.

            K. Ramkumar for the Appellants.

            K. Raj Choudhary, B.R. Agarwal and Ms. Sushma Manchanda
F     for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                      '·

           KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave against a judg-
      ment of a Divisio11 Bench of the Madras High Court delivered on
(jj   February 7, 1972.

            Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 along with one other person filed a
      representative suit on behalf of themselves and other members of the
      Thousand-Yadhava Community residing in Ramayanachavadi Street
      and the other adjoining lanes in North Masi Street, Madurai Town and
111   adjoining villages against original appellant No. 1 herein, for an orde~
                       B.K.C. MURUGA v. V.S. KONE (KANIA, J.)                    3
    ~

        directing him to render true and proper ac~ounts of the management
        of the_properties of the Thousand-Yadhava Communit)'. including the·         A
        Sri .Ramasami Sri Navaneetha Krishnasami Devasthanam Temples and
        their properties and to pay to the plaintiffs the amount ascertained as
        payable on such rendition of accounts with interest and other reliefs.
        Original appellant No. 1 herein was the trustee of the said temples. He
        died during the pendency of the appeal before us and his tWo sons have       B
        been joined as appellants Nos. l(i) to l(ii) in this appeal.

              We propose to refer to the parties by their descriptions in the suit
•       for the sake of convenience .
                        \
              Very briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the said temples
        were private religious trusts and the defendant had committed several        c
        acts of mismahagement in respect of the properties of the said trusts.
        The defendant denied these allegations. He, inter alia, contended that
        the suit as framed was not maintainable in law, in view of the provi-
        sions of the TamH Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
        Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The Trial Court D
        dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of
4       the said Act. The Trial Court held that the said temples were not
        private temples belongiil( to the aforesaid community, namely,
        Thousand-Yadhava Community. The Trial Court took the view that
        the Thousand-Yadhava Community must be regarded as a section of
        the Hindu Community and in that case both the temples would be E
        covered by the provisions of section 6(20) of the said Act. Sub-section
        (20) of section 6 defines the meaning of the word 'temple' for the
        purpose of the said Act and, very briefly stated, lays down that it is a
        place used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for
        the benefit of the Hindu Community or any section thereof, as a place
        of public religious worship. The Trial Court took the view that, F
    •   although this question could be decided primarily only by the Endow-
        ment Board and Civil Court has nojurisdi_ctio_n to go into it, it.could go
        into .that question inci~entally ~s was. done by the Trial Court. As a
        consequence of this conclusion, the Trial Court held that the suit was
        barred by the provisions of the said Act and was not maintainable at
        law. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against this decisi~n to the G
        Madras High Court. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court after
        examining the provisions of the said Act held that the Trial Court was
        not right in dismissing the suit in toto even with r"gard to the relief of
        accounting. The High Court held that defendant No. 1 (original appel-

    .   !ant before us) admitted that he was elected h1 1949 as the trustee of"
        the said temples at a meeting of the members of the community. The H
    4          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1989] Supp.· 1 S.C.R.

  said Act does not contain any provision for rendition of accounts. ·A
~ party seeking relief of accounting cannot' approach the Deputy
                                                                                 "
  Commissioner or any other authority under the said Act and hence,
  the Civil Court. is not barred either expressly or by necessary implica-
  tion from entertaining a suit in so far as it was for the relief of account-
  ing. Following upon this reasoning, the court allowed the appeal and
a passbd a preliminary decree against defendant No. 1 for rendition of
  a~¢unts while dismissing the suit in all other respects.


          The High Court did n_ot decide as to whether the said temples
    were private temples or _cou1d be regarded as public religious en,dow-
    ments falling within the definition of the term 'temple' as defined in
                                                                                 .
    sub-section (20) of section 6 of the said Act. Defendant No. 1 along
c   with some others filed a petition for Special Leave before this Court
    and by an order dated April 24, 1972. Special Leave was granted by•\his
    Court but was .confined to the question whether it was within the
    power of the Civil Court to direct accounts to be taken without decid-
    ing the question whether the temple is a public temple or a private
D   temple.

          At the hearing of the appeal before us, Mr. Ram Kumar, learned
   Coµnsel for the appellants conceded .that if the said temples were            "
   private temples as contended by the plaintiffs in the said suit, the
   defendant as the trustee was liable to render accounts of his manage-
E ment of the said trust to them as beneficiaries. It was, however, s,ub-
   milted by him that in case the said temples were not private temples
   but were temples as defined in sub-section (20) of section 6 of the said .
   Act to which we have already referred earlier, the suit for rendition of
   accounts was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the said Act ·
   and hence, it was not open to the High Court to have passed a decree
IF for  rendition of accounts without deciding whether the said temples
   were public temples or private temples. He drew our attention to              ,
   sub-section (20) of section 6 of the said Act which defines the term
   'temple' for the purpose of the said Act. We have already referred to
   that definition of the said term 'temple' earlier. Suffice it to state here
   that under that definition only public temples of the nature stated
G earlier could be regarded as temples. Sub-section ( 17) of section 6
   defines the term 'religious endowment' or 'endowment' 'and it is suffi-
   cient for the purpose of this appeal to note that it means property
   belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples
   for the purpose_s set out therein. Section 108 of the said Act runs as
   follows.
                                                                                 •
                         B.K.C. MURUGA v. V.S. KONE (KANIA, J.)                   5

                     "108. Bar of suits in respect of administration or.manage-
                                                                                       A
                     ment of religious institutions etc.

                          No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the
                     administration or management of a religious institution or
                     any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding
                     which provision .is made in this Act shall be instituted in       B
                     any Court of law, except under, and in confirmity with, !he
                     provisions of this Act."

          Section 63 of the said Act deals with the power of the Deputy Commis-
    •     sioner to hold inquiries into and decide the disputes and matters set
          out therein. It inter a/ia confers on him the power to hold inquiries in
          connection with the property and funds of the temples within the             c
          meaning of the said Act. Against the order of the Deputy Commis-
          sioner, an appeal is provided under section 69 to the Commissioner
          and section 70 lays down that a person aggrieved by an order passed by·
          the Commissioner under the provisions set out in clauses (i) and (ii) of
          sub-section (1) thereof can file a suit in a Civil Court. Sub-section (2)    D
          of section 70 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against
          the decree of the Civil Court under sub-section (1) of section 70.
        \ Chapter VIII of the said Act deals with the topic of Budgets, Accounts
          and Audit. Section 87 of the said Act provides that the trustee of every
        • religious institution shall keep regular accounts of all receipts and
          disbursements and provides that these accounts have to be audited by         E
          the auditors appointed in a prescribed manner. After the audit is com-
          pleted, the auditor is required under section 88 to send a report to the
          Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commis-
          sioner as provided therein. Section 90 deals with the rectification of
          defects disclosed in the audit and order of surcharge against trustee
          etc. It is-interesting to note that sub-section (6) of section 90 provides   F
          that an order of surcharge under this section against a trustee shall not
          bar a suit for accounts against him except in respect of the matters
          finally dealt with by such order.

                In the appeal before us a perusal of the plaint shows that the suit
         was filed not on behalf of any particular beneficiary or group of G
         beneficiaries but by a certain persons claiming to belong to the
•        beneficiary community, namely, the Thousand-Yadhava Community,
         and the suit was a representative suit instituted on behalf of themselves
         and other members of the\ community. There is no doubt that in
         respect of a public trust, beneficiaries as a class can file a si"t against
         ti!~. trus!~ for rendition of accounts, subject to the bar imposed by . H
    6           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1989] Supp. l S.C.R.

   section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was with a view to
A
   prevent reckless and harassing suits being brought against the trustees
   ofpublic trusts that section .92 was enacted r~rin&.that two or:more
   persons having interest in the suit could institute such a suit only with
   the. consent in writing of the Advocate General. However, we find that
   in view of the provisions of section 5 of the said Act, sections 92 and 93
B of tile Code of Civil Procedure have ceased to apply to the Hindu
   Religious and Charitable Endowments in the concerned State. Hence
   the 1bar, if any, to the institution of a suit like \his has to be found only
   in the provisions of the Act. We have already set out earlier the provi-
   sioris of section 108 of the said Act which is analogous to section 93 of       •
   the\ Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
   (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951") which was repealed
   by the said Act. Ma'ny of the powers of the Deputy Commissioner
   under the said Act to which we have already referred earlier are simi-
   lar to the powers conferred by section 57 of the said Act of 1951.
   Sections 63 and 64 of the said Act which deal with the powers of the
   Deputy Commissioner are in pari materia with the provisionsOfsec-
0 tions 57 and 58 of the said Act of 1951. Section 90(6) of the said Act
   provides that an order of surcharge under this section made against the
   trustee shall not bar a suit for accounts against him and we find a
   similar provision in sub-section (7) of section 74 of the said Act of
   1951. The schemes of the two Acts are largely similar. In Sri Vedagiri
   Laxmi Narasimha Swami Temple v. Induru Pattabhirami Reddy,
H (1967] 1 SCR 280 a question arose before this Court as to whether
   a suit by the present trustee against the previous trustee of a temple
   was barred by reason of the provisions of the said Act of 1951. It was
   argued in that case that the Act in question provides a complete machi-
   nary for deciding disputes in regard to accounts and, therefore, no suit
   for accounting against an ex-trustee can be filed at all in a Civil Court.
F After analysing the scheme of the said Act of 1951, and the provisions
   of the relevant sections of that Act, which we have referred to earlier
   that argument was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. It was
   pointed out by Subba Rao, C.J., who delivered the judgment of this
   Court that the scope of the auditor's investigation is limited. It is only
   an effective substitute for the trustee himself furnishing an audited
   account. It was held that Chapter VII of the said Act of 1951 only
   provides for a strict supervision of the financial side of the administra-
   tion. Chapter VII does not provide for determining a dispute in
   respect of rendition of account and does not bar a suit for that relief.
   Section 74(7) of the said Act of 1951 was not a bar to the maintainabi-
   lity of such a suit. The same reasoning applies to the case before us. In
H. our _opinion, Chapter VIII of the said Act has no bearinjl_ on the ques-
             '-B:K.C. MURUGA v. V.S. KONE [KANIA, J.I                    7

tion on!le liability of a trustee to render accounts to the benefici11ries   A
as a group or class and it does not provide for determining or deciding
a dispute in respect of such rendition of accounts and hence, section
108 of the said Act does not bar a suit like the one filed by respondent
No. 1 before us. We are of the view that the High Court did not
commit any error in passing a decree for rendition of account~ without
deciding the question whether a temple was a public or private trust.
                                                                             B

     In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs fixed at
Rs.2,000 to be divided between the respondents equally.

Y. Lal                                                Appeal dismissed.