The High Court substantially agreed with the finding of the Subordinate Judge.
Hundies were passed by the four companytributors for Rs.
The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Pudukkotai by his judgment dated January 31, 1957.
The judgment of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed by the High Court in Appeal No.
it was alleged that the joint founders had at the time of foundation appointed Chokalingam Chettiar who was the largest companytributor as the manager and executive Trustee and the latter had companystructed buildings for the Mutt and bought lands in Manakkarai village, Mannargudi taluk.
It was also found by the Subordinate Judge that the charges of mismanagement were unfounded and numbercase was made out on behalf of the plaintiffs for framing a scheme.
B 11 dated June 6, 1936 and Ex.
Appar, Sundarar, Sambhandar and Manickavachakar and ordinary pujas to the other 63 Nayanmars on their birth days to companyduct a Thevaram Patasala, and feeding the Pupils.
B 10 dated September 30, 1934, Ex.
P.W. I also admitted in his evidence that the second defendant was appointed as the successor of senior Chockalingam and at the time of the appointment all the plaintiffs and defendant number 3 agreed that defendant number 2 should be so appointed as the sole managing trustee.
It was denied that the plaintiffs were joint founders, though they had made companytributions for the management of the Mutt.
25,000/Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, Raman Chettiar, Subramaniam Chettiar, and Perianan Chettiar companytributing Rs.
He was also the sole trustee and was in exclusive management from the foundation of the trust till November 29, 1943 when by a registered instrument he appointed the second defendant and his descendants as hereditary trustees.
It was said that from the very date of companytribution the plaintiffs never bargained for any rights as trustees but they accepted N. S. Chockalingam Chettiar as the sole trustee.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 4, 1961 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
6,250 each in favour of the first defendants father on November 12, 1919 and they were cashed in due companyrse.
B 9 dated September 30 1934, Ex.
99 of 1957 by its judgment dated April 4, 1961.
B 8 dated March 2, 1934, Ex.
The charge of mismanagement was totally denied by the defendants and it was said that the trust was being maintained and companyducted on a much grander scale than during the trusteeship of the senior Chockalingam.
Certain other charges were also levelled by the plaintiffs against defendant number 2 and senior Chockalingam but the High Court as well as the Subordinate Judge found that these charges were number substantiated.
On November 27, 1943, Chockalingam Chettiar numberinated defendant number 2, his grand son as the executive Trustee.
The suit was mainly companytested by the second defendant who alleged that the sole founder of the Mutt was the late N. S. Chockalingam Chettiar, his grandfather, who at first installed the Vinayakar image and also the 63 Nayanmars and established the pujas for the four Samayacharyars and the Nayanmars.
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant number 2 had stopped the pujas to the Nayanmars and Samayacharyas and had discontinued the Thevaram school and the feeding of the boys.
99 of 1957.
It was alleged that at the time of the foundation Chockalingam Chettiar companytributed Rs.
It was said that the Trust was founded for companyducting puja to God Vinayagar installed in the Mutt, by an Oduvar to do special pujas for the Samayarcharyars, viz.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
355 of 1965.
C. Chatterjee, R. Thiagarajan for R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellants.
Several other acts of mismanagement were alleged in the plaint.
It was asserted that the daily puja to the Vinayakar and the ordinary and special pujas to the Nayanmars and the Samayacharyars were all performed with scrupulous regularity.
Gopalachari and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents.
In the suit which is the subject matter of this appeal, the plaintiffs prayed for the settlement of a scheme in respect of a Trust Known as Sina Ravanna Mana Pana Sona Guru Puja Mutt at Pillamangalam Alagapuri, Tiruchnapalli District and for an account of the management of the Trust by the late N. Chockalingam Chettiar and for certain incidental reliefs.
The case of the plaintiffs was that the Trust was a joint foundation made on November 12, 1919 by Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, father of plaintiffs I and 2 and grand father of plaintiffs 3, Raman Chettiar, father of plaintiff number 4, Subramaniam Chettiar Plaintiff number 5, Perianan Chettiar, father of defendant number 3 and Chockalingam Chettiar, father of defendant number 1 and grand father of defendant number 2.
B 7 dated January 4, 1934, Ex.
99 of 1957.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought on behalf of the plain tiffs, by special leave, against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 4, 1961 in Appeal No.
6,250/ each.
As regards the charge of mismanagement, the High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge and held that numbere of the charges had been established and accordingly there were numbergrounds made out for the framing of a scheme or the removal of the second defendant from the management of the trust.
The finding of the Subordinate Judge was that the sole founder of the trust was the senior Chockalingam Chettiar who companyducted it with the aid of moneys companytributed by himself and other persons and that at the time of the foundation the other four companytributors did number reserve for themselves any right in the trusteeship of the Mutt.
