Skip to content


Trustee of Temple of Sree Venugopalaswamivaru Vs. Vedantam Seetharamanujacharyulu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937Mad326
AppellantTrustee of Temple of Sree Venugopalaswamivaru
RespondentVedantam Seetharamanujacharyulu and ors.
Cases ReferredVaithilinga Mudaliar v. Board of Control
Excerpt:
- - been clearly laid down in vaithilinga mudaliar v......of this court. as has been observed there:the true distinction is, not whether a provision in a, scheme decree is directory or declaratory, but whether the provision sought to be executed is or is not in what is really the scheme part of the decree... the proper way of dealing with the matter is first to separate the scheme part from the rest of the decree and that, when that is done no provision in the scheme part is executable, whether it is directory or declaratory [at p. 754].2. in the present case, so far as the past arrears are concerned, they cannot be regarded as having been embodied in the scheme part of the decree, indeed they could not have been so embodied, for the simple reason that payment of past arrears is not a part of the permanent arrangement regulating the.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. On a proper construction of the judgment of the High Court, we think that the archakas, i.e., the respondents must be deemed to have been allowed arrears of pay from the date of suit, namely 28th September 1923 to the date of that judgment, namely 13th August 1931, and paditharam expenses likewise for the same period. If this be so, the question arises: Can the amounts claimed for this period be recovered by way of execution of the decree? The principle governing this matter has. been clearly laid down in Vaithilinga Mudaliar v. Board of Control, Sri Thayagarajaswami Devasthanam, Thiruvarur AIR 1936 Mad 581, a recent decision of a Bench of this Court. As has been observed there:

The true distinction is, not whether a provision in a, scheme decree is directory or declaratory, but whether the provision sought to be executed is or is not in what is really the scheme part of the decree... the proper way of dealing with the matter is first to separate the scheme part from the rest of the decree and that, when that is done no provision in the scheme part is executable, whether it is directory or declaratory [at p. 754].

2. In the present case, so far as the past arrears are concerned, they cannot be regarded as having been embodied in the scheme part of the decree, indeed they could not have been so embodied, for the simple reason that payment of past arrears is not a part of the permanent arrangement regulating the constitution of the temple. The respondents are therefore entitled to recover by way of execution the arrears for the period above mentioned. The execution petition, in so far as it relates to the arrears which accrued due previous to the suit (from 1st January 1923 to 28th September 1923), we must hold, is unsustainable. We may mention that from the date of the High Court's decree, the archakas become entitled to their salary and the paditharam expenses under the provisions of the scheme and it follows that these amounts cannot be recovered by way of execution. It has been urged on behalf of the trustee, the appellant, that the archakas came into possession of some rents and other sums, which should be directed to be set off against the arrears now claimed. The Subordinate Judge has in the judgment delivered in the suit held that the archakas were not bound to render an account; that in our opinion must be limited to the period before the suit. If it can be shown that since the suit the archakas came into possession of any moneys belonging to the temple, their claim should to that extent be reduced; but that is a matter which must be gone into by the executing Court. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.

3. Further Order - Mr. Venkatachalam orally applies Under Section 47, Civil P.C., that his application, in so far as it relates to the arrears due from 13th August 1931 to 30th September 1932, may be allowed to be converted into a suit. We think this request may be granted and we direct that on his paying the necessary court-fee, the application to this extent may be treated as a suit and disposed of by the lower Court. Time for payment of court-fee will be one month from the date of the receipt of this order by the lower Court.


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