Skip to content


Pallaprolu Krishnamacharlu and anr. Vs. Pallaprolu Rangacharlu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad136; (1942)2MLJ687
AppellantPallaprolu Krishnamacharlu and anr.
RespondentPallaprolu Rangacharlu and ors.
Cases ReferredSitarama Das Bavaji v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board
Excerpt:
- .....the district court of nellore under section 63 (4) of the act. the district judge decided that the board had power to make such a provision and held it to be unobjectionable. the appeal is from that decision.2. in support of his contention that the board had no power to provide that one of the trustees shall be appointed as a managing trustee, the learned advocate for the appellants has referred to the decision in sitarama das bavaji v. hindu religious endowments board, madras : air1937mad106 . that was a decision under section 63 before it was amended in 1935. the section as amended provides that the board may, in settling a scheme, make provision for the fixing of the number of non-hereditary trustees, the appointment of a new trustee or trustees in addition to the existing trustee or.....
Judgment:

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal is concerned with a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, in respect of an excepted temple known as the Sri Udayavarla Sannadhi which is situate in a suburb of Nellore. The Board decided that there should be two trustees in addition to the four hereditary trustees and in Clause (3) of the scheme the Board took power to appoint one of the trustees as the managing trustee for such period as it might deem fit not exceeding three years. The appellants objected to this provision and filed a suit in the District Court of Nellore under Section 63 (4) of the Act. The District Judge decided that the Board had power to make such a provision and held it to be unobjectionable. The appeal is from that decision.

2. In support of his contention that the Board had no power to provide that one of the trustees shall be appointed as a managing trustee, the learned advocate for the appellants has referred to the decision in Sitarama Das Bavaji v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras : AIR1937Mad106 . That was a decision under Section 63 before it was amended in 1935. The section as amended provides that the Board may, in settling a scheme, make provision for the fixing of the number of non-hereditary trustees, the appointment of a new trustee or trustees in addition to the existing trustee or trustees and 'associating one or more persons with the trustee or trustees or constituting a separate body for the purpose of participating or assisting in the whole or any part of the administration of the endowment connected with such math or temple.' Further the Board may define the powers and duties of the trustee or trustees.

3. We consider that under the section as it now stands, the Board has power to appoint any trustee whether hereditary or non-hereditary to be the managing trustee for a period. Of course if the Board purported to confer on one of the trustees all the powers of the general body of trustees that would no doubt be exceeding their powers. But the scheme framed in this case does not take away the powers of the general body of trustees.

4. As we agree with the District Judge, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //