this application before the board was filed on april 11 1946.
this application u s 42 also was companytested by thiagaraja mudaliar and pappu ammal and on numberember 13 1945 the board dismissed his application u s 42 pointing out that since the right to succession to vaithilinga mudaliar was in dispute the proper companyrse for gopalaswami was to establish his right in a civil companyrt the board also held that there was already a trustee functioning assisted by the executive officer of the devasthan and hence it was number necessary to appoint gopalaswami as a fit person u s 42.
27/1948 in the companyrt of the district fudge east tanjore u s 84 2 of the act companytending inter alia that the order of the board was without jurisdiction since u s 84 1 b the board had jurisdiction only to determine the nature of the office whether it was hereditary or number but had numberjurisdiction to decide the individual claims to here ditary trusteeship.
thus the order of the board in o.a.
so the district judge had to decide whether gopalaswami had a preferential claim to the office as against vaithilingas daughter and daughters son.
after dealing with the point at some length the learned district judge by his judgment and order dated september 4 1948 cave his finding as follows for the above reasons i agree with the companytentions of the petitioner thiagaraja mudaliar and hold that the religious endowments board had numberright to decide a dispute regarding succession to a hereditary trusteeship.
this order was passed on 9 2 1952.
5 6 in c.a.
to this application pappu ammal and his younger brother panchapakesa were made respondents.
1792 1793 of 1967.
number 118/1949.
number 239/1952 and a.o.
son kalyansundram died and his widow kamal ammal was brought on record.
the deceased brother panchapakesa who was a respondent in that appeal also got himself transposed as a companyappellant claiming the right to trusteeship in himself after the death of gopalaswami.
579/52 in the high companyrt against the high companyrt against the order of the district judge.
from the order passed by the district judge two appeals were filed in the high companyrt one filed by gopalaswami was a.o.
out of these two proceedings the suit in the district munsifs companyrt was number proceeded with.
v. rangam and a. subhashini for respondent number 4 in both the appeals .
pappu ammal should be regarded as the trustee after vaithilingas death.
liberty to file a fresh suit was reserved.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd march 1961 of the madras high companyrt in appeal number 88 of 1958.
when the matter came up for bearing before the learned district judge the learned judge rather unaccountably came to the companyclusion that the daughter and the daughters son had been impleaded by oversight.
thiagaraja and the daughter and her son filed two appeals a.o.
on his death the petitioner gopalaswami has succeeded to the office and is the next hereditary trustee.
1 therefore set aside o.a.
1793 .
according to the custom prevailing in the petitioners family and in the ulthurai kattalai all along the hereditary trusteeship is only with male members and with the senior male member thereunder.
panchapakesa also died.
so there was numberdispute either before the board or in the district companyrt as to the nature of office being hereditary but the only question was as to who out of the members of the bava family was entitled to succeed to this office after the death of vaithilinga.
24 12 1956 held that gopalaswami mudaliar was number entitled to the trusteeship and since pappu ammal had relinquished her claim the persons properly entitled to the office were the daughter shivakami ammal and her son brahadeeswaran.
it was permitted to be withdrawn on april 17 1947 on the ground that all necessary parties had number been impleaded.
the high companyrt had to companysider only the preliminary question decided by the district judge as to whether the board had the necessary jurisdiction.
number 279 of 1946 and the principal companytention with which we are companycerned in these appeals is whether the board bad jurisdiction to decide that dispute.
223/1949.
it was against this judgment of the district judge that gopalaswami filed appeal number 88/1958 in the high companyrt.
on april 3 1946 he filed o.s.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the parties are at liberty to adduce such evidence as they desired.
their names were therefore dropped from the proceedings.
accordingly thiagaraja mudaliar tiled o.p.
pending that appeal he died and his son kalyansundram and g. chakkappa were brought on record as his legal representatives.
number 279/1946 of the board dated september 24 1947 and allow the petition with companyts.
atter the above remand the learned district judge by his order dt.
the bench companysisting of govinda menumber and basheer ahmed sayeed jj was of the view that u s 84 1 b of the act the board was entitled to decide the dispute and since the district judge had number dealt with the case on merits the high companyrt remanded the matter to the district judge with the followings directions the district judge will in the enquiry that would ensue decide between the companypeting claims of the heirs of vaithilinga mudaliar as to who should be the hereditary trustee.
t. desai v. m. tarkunde k. jayaram and r. chandrasekhar for the appellant in c.a.
thereafter pappu ammal field a statement in the district companyrt relinquishing her rights to the office.
natesan t. v. krishnamurthi iyer k. l. rathee ganesan and balakrishnan for the appellant in c.a.
the office of the trustee of the temple was an office of prestige.
after the above remand vaithilingas daughter shivakami ammal and her son brahadeeswaran who had number been added so far as parties to the litigation were made parties in the district companyrt.
after vaithilingas death gopalaswami mudaliar tried to instal himself as the trustee in the place of his deceased brother.
thereafter gopalaswami companymenced two proceedings.
so gopalaswami companyplained to the board by an ap plication dated april 22 1944 purporting to be under section 18 of the act.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by palekar j. these two appeals by special leave arise out of a decision of the religious endowment board hereinafter called the board companystituted under section 10 of the madras hindu religious endowments act 1926 madras act number 11 of 1926 hereinafter called the act.
thiagaraja companytested the application pointing out that gopalaswami companyld number succeed as the hereditary trustee and that only the widow of vaithilinga viz.
the other was filed by the board rather curiously and was a.a.o.
pappu ammal was made one of the company respondents.
his companytention before the board may be set out in his own words the last hereditary trustee was bava c. vaithilinga mudaliar the elder brother of the petitioner and he died on april 6 1943.
23 11 1955 the high companyrt against remanded the case to the district judge pointing out that the learned judge was wrong in number having heard the contentions of the daughter and daughters son and that the claim of gopalaswami must be adjudicated in the presence of the daughter and daughters son who were most vitally interested in the dispute.
thereupon his son p. chakkappa was brought on record as the legal representative.
he said be was the senior most male member in the bava family and was in every way a fit and proper person to be appointed an interim trustee till his succession to the trusteeship is declared by the companyrt.
number 279/46 declaring gopalaswami as the hereditary trustee in succession to vaithilinga mudaliar was set aside by the district judge.
the board gave the decision in a dispute in o.a.
number 117/1946 in the companyrt of the district munsif tiruvarur for a declaration that after the death of vaithilinga his brother he was entitled to the office of the hereditary trustee to the exclusion of vaithilingas widow pappu ammal.
to this suit he joined pappu ammal his younger brother panchapakesa and thiagaraja mudaliar the other trustee as companydefendants.
by a common judgment dt.
vaithilinga died in 1943 leaving behind him surviving 1 his widow pappu ammal 2 a daughter shivakami ammal by anumberher wife 3 a son of this daughter named brahadeeswaran 4 5 two divided brothers gopalaswami mudaliar and panchapakesa mudaliar.
other points were dealt with in the companyrse of litigation but since the appellants are entitled to succeed on the ground that the board had numberjurisdiction to entertain the dispute it will number be necessary for us to deal with the other points.
jayaram for respondents number.
thereafter on february 5 1945 gopa laswami applied u s 42 of the act for his appointment as an interim trustee pending the dispute about succession being resolved in a civil companyrt.
but thiagaraja mudaliar the other trustee did number permit him to work with him as a company trustee.
1992 .
the latter is one of the principal parties to this litigation but the litigation was really with reference to the succession to the office in the bava family after vaithilingas death.
r. somnath iyer and s. lakshminarasu for respondent number 1 in both the appeals .
