RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Rajah of Raminad and he files this petition in his capacity as the sole and hereditary trustee of the Ramanathapuram Devasthanam and Chatrams. The petitioner was the hereditary trustee of several Devasthanam each of which owned estates which had been notified and taken over by the government. The claim of the petitioner is that the compensation payable to the several institutions of which he is the trustee has not been calculated in accordance with law and that a much lesser sum than that which is legally due is being paid. The relief therefore which he seeks is the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction directing the State of Madras to calculate the compensation payable to the institutions under Sections 38 (2) and 54 (1) of the act XXVI of 1948 by reference to the original rate unreduced by Act XXX of 1947 and to make payment thereof or in the alternative to take into account the compensation provided in Section 5 (1) of the Act XXX of 1947 and to make payment accordingly. In the affidavit in support of the petition he has set out in schedule A the villages which have been taken over by the Government and the several temples and Chatrams to whom these villages belong. The number of these institutions is numerous.

( 2 ) WHEN the petition in this form was filed, the office raised an objection that a single petition was not maintainable and that as the petitioner was asserting his rights as trustee of distinct institutions his right to relief in respect of these institutions could not be clubbed together so as to enable him to file a single petition. As learned counsel for the petitioner contested this position, the matter has been placed before me for orders.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Kesava Aiyangar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He urged that what was being agitated in this petition was an assertion of the duty of the trustee and as there was unity in this respect by reason of the several trusts being under a single trustee a single petition was not open to objection. I am not persuaded that this view is right. What the petitioner-trustee is asserting is not any individual right of his own but a right in right of the trust. Therefore there are as many complaints voiced in this petition as there are trusts or institutions and the mere fact that there is a common manager or a single individual who is entitled to act on behalf of all the trusts cannot be used to blur the legal position, that it is the right of the institutions which is sought to be asserted or protected in this petition. I do not see any difference between the present case and the one where the managers of several institutions authorize by a power of attorney one common individual to take action on their behalf. The fact that the authorization here is by law and not by the act of parties does not, in my opinion, make any difference. It is no doubt true that the points that arise in regard to each institution are identical in all the cases. The identity of the points to be decided however cannot impart unity to the right, the alleged violation of which gives rise to this writ petition. In my judgment the objection taken by the office is right and the present case is governed by the rule referred to in the office note. The petitioner must file as many petitions as there are institutions whose rights he seeks to assert.

Annexure Notes for Orders of Court. S.R. No. 1751 (Writ Petition) A.E. No. 9 of 1957.

This unregistered writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the Rajah of Ramnad as the sole hereditary trustee of certain devasthanams and chatrams for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondent-State of Madras to calculate the compensation payable to those institutions taken over under Madras Act XXVI of 1948, either by reference to the original rate unreduced by Madras Act XXX or 1947 or by taking into account the compensation provided in S. 5(1) of the said Madras Act XXX of 1947, and to make payment accordingly. The full particulars relating to the villages taken over are set out in schedules A and B annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The point for consideration is whether a single petition can be accepted for the relief claimed in respect of all the 304 villages mentioned therein.

Schedule A contains the particulars relating to the 244 devasthanam villages which were severally endowed to various temples mentioned in column 4 thereof and taken over by the Government on 5 different dates, and schedule 6 similarly contains the particulars relating to 36 chatram villages taken over by the Government on three different dates. Though the prayer is for a single writ of mandamus as contended by the petitioners Counsal, for directing the respondent-State to calculate the compensation in the manner set out by the petitioner, this relief is in respect of a number of villages for which there are different notifications giving rise to separate and distinct causes of action. S. 6 Sub-S. (4) of the Madras Court-Fees and Suit Veluation Act, 1955, provides for the payment of separate court-fees in petitions as well (which include writ petitions also) where reliefs are claimed based on distinct and different causes of action. In petitions for writs of certiorari where the orders sought to be quashed are distinct and different, separate petitions are being insisted upon in conformity with the rulings of Court given from time to time, and it is submitted that the same principles are applicable to all writ petitions where reliefs of a composite character are sought as in the present case based on distinct and separate causes of action irrespective of the nature of the writ or the wording of the prayer.

Attention is invited in this connection to W.P. No. 1031 of 1956 filed by the Rajah of Sivaganga and admitted by this Court on 20th September 1956. The facts and prayer therein are ad idem , with those in the present petition, save that, all the villages were taken over by the Government on a single date. The question of maintainability of a single petition was raised in that case also by the office and the petition taken on file as there was only one cause of action which had accrued on the date on which the villages were taken over by the Government. As the villages in the present case were taken over in separate groups on 8 different dates under separate notifications as already pointed out (vide pages 24 and 26 of the affidavit), separate petitions appear necessary in respect of each group of villages. As this is not conceded by petitioners Counsel, this note is submitted for a ruling by Court regarding the filing of separate petitions as aforesaid.