K. Gnanaprakasam, J. The question, which is debatable, and which arises for our consideration in this case is, whether the poojari/ archaka/ gurukkal can also be a trustee of a temple How far the or poojari is justified or recognised in playing the role of poojari and trustee or a temple as well

2. Vaidyanatha Gurukkal, the plaintiff in the suit claimed that he is the archaka-cum-trustee for the temple, known as Sri Visweswara Vinayagar Temple and that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment authorities had started to interfere with his Trusteeship by Issuance or a notice in R.C.No.4827/72/A3, dated 30.8.1972 by calling for appointment or non-hereditary trustees for the said temple. The plaintiff questioned the notice by filing an application under Sec.63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter called as the) before the Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore and prayed for a declaration of his hereditary trusteeship. His claim was negatived. Not satisfied with the order, he preferred an appeal, A.P.No.40 of 1976, before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E, Madras which came to be dismissed on 19.7.1976. As against the said order, the plaintiff filed the statutory suit in O.S.No.562 of 1976 before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

3. The plaintiff contended in the plaint that one Kolandayyan was the archaka-trustee of Sri Visweswara Vinayagar Temple of Marudur Village. At the time of Inam settlement, a grant of 20 acres, 80 cents of dry lands in Marudur village was granted in the name of the temple. Kolandayyan had two sons and a daughter namely Subramania Gurukkal and Kandaswami Gurukkal and Tayammal. On the death of Kolandayyan, Kandaswami Gurukkal became the archaka trustee as his brother pre-deceased Kolandayyan. Kandaswami Gurukkal remained as bachelor and after his death, his elder brothers son Kolandaswami Gurukkal became the archaka-trustee and he did not have any issues. His sister Tayammal had a daughter by name Subbulakshmi, who married Nallaswami Gurukkal, who is none other than the agnatic cousin of Kolandaswami Gurukkal. The plaintiff is the son of Nallaswami Gurukkal and Subbulakshmi and has been functioning as archaka-cum- hereditary trustee of the temple.

4. The plaintiff also relied upon a Registered will executed by Kolandaswami Gurukkal in favour of the plaintiff, wherein he bequeathed all the rights in the suit temple with a direction that the plaintiff should perform his obsequies. The plaintiff could not produce the said will before the statutory authorities and he got the will only after great search and filed before the trial Court and claimed that he is the trustee-cum- archaka of the temple.

5. The appellant resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit temple was looked after by a Bhujanga Gounder and there as no trustee for the said temple, much less hereditary trusteeship for the said temple and the plaintiff is not the descendant of Kolandayyan.

6. The trial Court took the view that the plaintiff does not satisfy the definition of hereditary trustee as defined in Sec.6(2) of the that the plaintiff was also paying contribution to the Board, which fact was established by the documents Exs.A-6 to 7, that the plaintiff was setting out various pleas about his right to the temple, and though the Will, Ex.A-1, relied by the plaintiff, was true and held to be proved, Kolanthaisamy in the will nowhere had stated that he was the hereditary trustee of the temple and he had conferred the so called right of office in favour of the plaintiff. After having considered all other aspects also, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the hereditary trustee and dismissed the suit.

7. As against the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.429 of 1984 before this Court. Learned single Judge of this Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court by allowing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, H.R. 8 C.E., Department preferred this appeal.

8. The learned Government Pleader, representing the appellant has submitted that the Poojari cannot also be a trustee of the temple and that the first respondent, who happens to be a poojari cannot claim that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple and according to him, the learned single Judge was not correct in holding that the first respondent is the hereditary trustee of the temple and therefore, the appellant is entitled to appoint trustees to the temple to carry on the administration of the temple. It is further submitted that the temple is a public temple and the first respondent has not proved that he is a hereditary trustee as defined under Sec.6(2) of the Act 1960 and in the absence of the same, the findings of the learned single Judge is not correct.

9. On the contrary, the learned advocate for the first respondent has submitted that the temple in question is a small temple and it has been the practice in South India, for a temple like the suit temple, that the poojari, who has been carrying on the poojas, after cleaning the deities, offering floral tributes performing Neiveithiyams and chanting Mandhras, also administered the entire affairs of the temple and thereby playing the role of a trustee. The poojaris family has been carrying on the above said dual functions for generations, father to son and to grandson, and it should be presumed that the said poojari is also performing the duties or a poojari and trustee and the poojariship merged with the trusteeship and the same is being carried on by an individual called either as prohither or poojari, who carries on the said activities. It is therefore urged on behalf of the first respondent that the family and also administering the affairs of the temple at least for the past three generations and that therefore, they are the hereditary trustee of the temple apart from the fact that they are poojaries and the appellant has no right to interfere with the affairs of the first defendant.

10. The point for consideration is as to whether the poojari can also function as trustee and whether the plaintiff has proved the said aspect in this case.

11. Admittedly, the temple is situated in Marudur, a remote village in Avinasi Taluk, Coimbatore District. At the time of Inam Settlement, grant or 20 acres, 80 cents or dry lands in Marudur village was granted to the temple as Devadayam and the same was confirmed by the Inam Commission. Undoubtedly, the land belongs to the temple and not to an individual. What is claimed by the plaintiff is that he and his predecessors, commencing from Kolandayyan had been doing poojas and also functioning as a trustee of the temple and after the death of Kolandayyan, his second son Kandaswami Gurukkal was performing the dual roles and he died issueless and his sister a son who is the plaintiff, has been carrying on the poojas and or the trustee to the temple. From the abovesaid facts, it is made clear that at least for three generations, the first defendant and his ancestors have been carrying on poojas to the temple and also administering the temple as a trustee without anybody is interference much less by the appellant. There is absolutely no evidence on the part of the respondents 3 to 5 that the Villagers were functioning as trustees and in the absence of the same, the first defendant warps and stress his case that he and his ancestors have been doing the work of the poojari and also functioning as trustees as well of the said temple.

12. It is no doubt true that by reason of conflict between interest and duty, it would be a bad precedent for the office of hereditary trusteeship and poojari to be combined in one and the same person, but that should not be applied to small temples, where the villagers do not take any interest and everything has got to be attended to by the Poojari himself. The said view was taken by Rajamannar, C.J., in L.P.A.No.36 of 1955, (referred in 77 L.W. 129) which is an unreported judgment. The said view was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muthuswami Gurukkal v. Aiyaswami Thevar 77 L.W. 129 and held:

In the case of small village temples where the temple property is of insignificant value and the income is hardly sufficient even to meet the routine expenses of the temple. If the archaka of the Poojari is left in the management of the temple lands and the affairs of the temple, without any interference by any of the villagers for a long number of years, it must be presumed that with the consent and acquiescence of the worshippers of the village, the Poojari is the trustee as well. It is further observed:

This Court has been consistently taking the view that in our parts, it is frequently found that the office of archaka and a manager or trustee are found united in the same person, that is the archaka.

13. In the case of Babu Gurukkal v. The Commissioner for H.R. 8 C.E., Madras Babu Gurukkal v. The Commissioner for H.R. 8 C.E., Madras Babu Gurukkal v. The Commissioner for H.R. 8 C.E., Madras (1964)1 MLJ. 384 [LQ/MadHC/1986/466] K.Veeraswami, J. (as he then was) following the decision in Muthuswami Gurukkal v. Aiyaswami Thevar 77 L.W. 129 opined:

Often in this part of the country, small temples like these have only poojaris who, by long custom or usage, look after the affairs of the temples where they serve as gurukkals. They, thus function in a dual capacity, namely, poojari-cum-trustee. Such a combination of offices is not necessarily oppose to public policy or contrary to law.

It is further observed, the principle that the servant of a temple cannot properly function as a trustee as well does not apply to small temples.

14. Of course, the learned Government Pleader has sought to rely upon the case of Chinna Andi Pandarama v. The Commissioner, H.R. 8 C.E., Madras Chinna Andi Pandarama v. The Commissioner, H.R. 8 C.E., Madras Chinna Andi Pandarama v. The Commissioner, H.R. 8 C.E., Madras (1981)1 MLJ. 206 [LQ/MadHC/1990/753] . That is a case, where the poojari was not able to establish that he and his ancestors were acting as trustees.

15. But, in our case, it has been established that Kolandayyan was functioning as the Poojari and trustee and after his death, his son Kandasamy Gurukkal became the archaka and trustee and after his death, his elder brothers son Kolandaisamy became the archaka and trustee of the temple. Subsequently, the plaintiff, who is the agnatic cousin became the archaka and trustee of the temple. As such, the plaintiff and his predecessors have been carrying on the affairs of the temple as poojari-cum-trustee at least for past three generations without anybodys interference, much less by the appellant or by the villagers.

16. In this connection, it is useful to refer the decision rendered by S.Mohan, J., (as he then was) in the case of Ranganatha Pillai v. The Commissioner, for H.R. 8 C.E., Madras Ranganatha Pillai v. The Commissioner, for H.R. 8 C.E., Madras Ranganatha Pillai v. The Commissioner, for H.R. 8 C.E., Madras (1979)2 MLJ. 23 [LQ/MadHC/1986/255] . The learned Judge considered the definition of hereditary trustee as contained in Sec.6, Clause II which is as follows:

Hereditary trustee means, the trustee of a religious institution, succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right of is registered by usage of is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force.

After considering that objection, it was observed by the Court that:

Having regard to the comprehensive definition, it is enough if the usage is established for long number of years evidencing exercise of hereditary trusteeship of a particular temple or temples by members of a family. As I said above, hereditary trusteeship is not to be understood as from father to son and from son to his son. That is because the definition is very wide in its amplitude.

The said principle is an accepted one and in the instant case also, it has been established by the first respondent that he and his family members have been qualifying on the affairs of the temple as poojari-cum-trustee for the past more than three generations.

17. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity and we do not find any good or valid reasons to interfere with the same.

16. We, therefore, hold that the appellant cannot succeed in this appeal and the appeal deserved to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.