P.S. Kailasam, J.
1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in R.P. No. 63 of 1965 from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and the Resolution of the Area Committee No. 1067 of 1965 dated 3rd July, 1965, appointing the 3rd respondent as a trustee and quashing the same. The 3rd respondent was appointed as a trustee by the Area Committee and the appointment was confirmed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The appointment is challenged on the ground that the 3rd respondent is disqualified under Section 26(h) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (XXII of 1959) and is that he has acted adversely to the interests of the institution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner was a hereditary trustee and that the Area Committee had no jurisdiction to appoint any other trustee. Lastly he submitted that the impugned order was vitiated in that no proper enquiry was made. It is unnecessary to consider the second and third contentions, as the first contention that the 3rd respondent is disqualified as he acted adversely to the interests of the institution has to be upheld. The father of the 3rd respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 1234 of 1958 claiming the property which is the subject-matter of trust in this case as his private property. The suit was dismissed and the 3rd respondent's father Rajarathana Mudaliar filed on appeal (A.S. No. 337 of 1960) in this Court. Pending the appeal, Rajarathana Mudaliar died and the 3rd respondent was brought on record. He prosecuted the appeal and the appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the appeal, a Bench of this Court observed that the Board might consider the claims of the 3rd respondent for the appointment of a trustee for the charity. The authorities below construed the above passage as a finding by this Court that the 3rd respondent is not disqualified.
2. The 3rd respondent by claiming the trust properties as his in the appeal, has acted adversely to the interests of the Institution. The explanation that it was his father who filed the appeal and that he merely continued it, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent was a major and did pursue the appeal by contending that the properties belonged to him and not to the trust. This clearly would be an act which will be adverse to the institution. It is true that this Court has remarked that the claims of the 3rd respondent may be considered by the Board for the trusteeship. But that would not mean that the Court has laid down that the 3rd respondent was not disqualified. The contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is disqualified under Section 26(h) will have to be upheld. The appointment of the 3rd respondent is quashed. This petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.