# SAMBUDAMURTHI MUDALIAR v. STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 424
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-09-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1671 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. ~Hah, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sambudamurthi-mudaliar-v-state-of-madras-and-anr-4837
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

B
M.adras Hindu Religious and ChGritable Endowments Act (19 of 1951),
.s. 6(9)-Trustee of temple elected for fixed period by members of com.
munity who established temple-If hereditary trustee.
The appellant was elected as a trustee of a
temple for
one ye.ar.
The temple was founded two hundred years ago by the members of the
community and according to the usage of the temple, the trustees were
C
·elected for one year, at a meeting of the members of the <"Ommunity.
On th" question whether the appellant has a hereditary trustee, because
he was, under s. 6 (9) of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951, the 'trustee of a religious institution succession to
·whose office is regulated by usage',
HELD : The phrase 'succession to whose office is regulated by usage'
))
·would only apply when the ordinary rules of succession under the Hindu
Jaw are modified by usage, and succession has to be determined in accor-
·dance with the modified rules. The office of a heredita'ry trustee is in the
nature of property. Succession in relation to property implies passing of
•On interest from one person '1o another. [428 C-D]
In the present case, the election to .the office was for a fixed period
of one yGar.
In such a case, it is not possible to say thefe is a succession
E
io.the office, be.cause: (a) on the efflux of the period for which one trustee
is appointed~ there is a vacancy and another is elected to that vacancy, and
(b) since there is a possibility of the same frustee being tP~lected, an
impossible legal position arises in which a person could be a successor
of himself. [429 F"H]
Jn re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1941 [1941] F.C.R. 12,
•Gat!fsh_Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary, 63 LA. 448, Bhabatarini v. Asha/ata,
F
70 I.A. 57, Angurbala Mullick v. Dehabrata Mullick, [1959) S.C.R. 1125.
1134 and Sita/ Das v. Sam Ram, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 606 applie3.
Shri Mahant Paramananda Das GoJwami v. Radhakrishna Das, 51
M.L.J. 258, referred to.
State of Madras v. R<makrishna, I.LR. [1957] Mad. 1084, approved.

## Text

424
SAMBUDAMURTHI MUDALIAR
A
v.
STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR.
September 15, 1969
(J. C. ~HAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
B
M.adras Hindu Religious and ChGritable Endowments Act (19 of 1951),
.s. 6(9)-Trustee of temple elected for fixed period by members of com.
munity who established temple-If hereditary trustee.
The appellant was elected as a trustee of a
temple for
one ye.ar.
The temple was founded two hundred years ago by the members of the
community and according to the usage of the temple, the trustees were
C
·elected for one year, at a meeting of the members of the <"Ommunity.
On th" question whether the appellant has a hereditary trustee, because
he was, under s. 6 (9) of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951, the 'trustee of a religious institution succession to
·whose office is regulated by usage',
HELD : The phrase 'succession to whose office is regulated by usage'
))
·would only apply when the ordinary rules of succession under the Hindu
Jaw are modified by usage, and succession has to be determined in accor-
·dance with the modified rules. The office of a heredita'ry trustee is in the
nature of property. Succession in relation to property implies passing of
•On interest from one person '1o another. [428 C-D]
In the present case, the election to .the office was for a fixed period
of one yGar.
In such a case, it is not possible to say thefe is a succession
E
io.the office, be.cause: (a) on the efflux of the period for which one trustee
is appointed~ there is a vacancy and another is elected to that vacancy, and
(b) since there is a possibility of the same frustee being tP~lected, an
impossible legal position arises in which a person could be a successor
of himself. [429 F"H]
Jn re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1941 [1941] F.C.R. 12,
•Gat!fsh_Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary, 63 LA. 448, Bhabatarini v. Asha/ata,
F
70 I.A. 57, Angurbala Mullick v. Dehabrata Mullick, [1959) S.C.R. 1125.
1134 and Sita/ Das v. Sam Ram, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 606 applie3.
Shri Mahant Paramananda Das GoJwami v. Radhakrishna Das, 51
M.L.J. 258, referred to.
State of Madras v. R<makrishna, I.LR. [1957] Mad. 1084, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1671 of
1966.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 31, 1965
"Of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 276 oi. 1962. ·
G
M. K. Ramamurthi, Vineet Kumar, J, Ramamurthy and ShyaH
mala Pappu, for the appellant.
A. V. Rangam, for the respQndents.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SAMBUDAMURTH! v. MADRAS (Ramaswami, J.)
425
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J.
This appeal is brought by certificate froni
the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 31, 1965
in A.S. No. 276 of 1962.
The appellant brought the suit in O.S. No. 3 of 1961 in the
Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam for setting aside the
order dated May 10, 1960 of respondent No. 1 the Commissioner
of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras who had
affirmed earlier the order of the second respondent, the Deputy
Commissioner, holding that the trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil
in Manjakollai village was not hereditary.
The appellant was
elected as a trustee by the Sengunatha Mudaliars of Manjakollai
village at a meeting held on June 27, 1957. According to the
appellant the temple was founded two hundred years ago by the
members of his community and since then the management of the
temple and its affairs was always vested in the community of the
Sengunatha Mudaliars and no person other than the elected trustee
had at any time the right of management and control of the temple. The appellant said that the temple was declared as an "exempted" temple under the provisions of Madras Act 1 of 1925. The
case of the appellant was that the trusteeship of the temple was
'·hereditary".
The respondents, however, took a different view
and proceeded on the !Jasis that trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil
was not hereditary. The Subordinate Judge held that the appellant was a hereditary trus_tee and the suit was not barred by limitation.
The respondents took the matter in appeal to the Madras
High Court which by its judgment dated March 31, 1965 allowed
the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge,
Nagapattinam.
Section 6, sub-s. (9) of Madras Act 19 of 1951 states:
"In this l}ct, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context-
\9) 'hereditary trustee' means the trustee of a religious institution succession to whose office devolves by
hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specificaily
provided for by the founder, so long ~s such scheme of
succession is in force;"
This Act has been substituted by Madras Act 22 of 1959 but the
definition of the trustee is identical in both the Acts.
The question to be considered in this appeal is whether the
appellant is a hereditary trustee within the meaning·of the section.
The definition includes three types of cases : (!) succession to the
office of trusteeship devolving by hereditary right; (2) succession
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 sc.R.
to such office being regulated by usage; and (3) succession being
specifically provided for by the
founder on condition that the
scheme of such succession is still in force.
It is not the case of
the appellant that the trustees of the temple of the Kumaran Koil
are hereditary trustees because their office devolves by hereditary
right or because succession to that office is specifically provided for
by the founder. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that
tl:e succession is "regulated by usage". It was said that according
to the usage of the temple the trustees were elected for a period
of one year each at a meeting of the members of the Sangunatha
Mudaliar Community and so the appellant must be held to be a
trustee within the meaning of s. 6(9) of Act 19 of 1951. In our
opinion, there is no warrant for this argument. The phrase "regulated by usage" in s. 6(9) of the Act must be construed. along
with the phrase "succession to this office" and when so construed
that part of the definition would only apply where the ordinary
rules of succession under the Hindu law are modified by usage cud
succession has to be determined in accordance with the modified
rules.
The word "succession'' in relation to property and rights
and interests in property generally implies "passing of an interest
from one person to another" (vide in Re: Hindu Women's Ri?ht
to Property Act, 1941('). It is now well-established that the office
of a heredhary trustee is in the nature of property. This is so \1hether the trustee has a beneficial interest of s0me sort or not.
('ec
Ganesh Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary(') and Bhabatarini v. A 1/i<-
lara("). Ordinarily a shebaitship or the office of dharmakartho is
vested in-the heirs of the founder unless the .founder has faid dr11-.n
a special sche1ne of succession or except when usage or i:.-u~:nn1 to
the contrary is proved to exist. Mukherjea J.. in Angurhala Mullick v. Debabrata Mu/lick(') delivering the judgment of this Court
observed:
"Unless therefore, the founder has disposed of the
shebaitship in any particular manner-and this right of
disposition is inherent in the founder--or except when
usage or custom of a different nature is proved to exist,
shebaitship like any other species of heritable property
follows the line of inheritance from the founder."
A
B
c
D
E
F
In the case of mutts, whose heads are often celibates and someG
times sanyasins, special rules of succession obtain by custom and
usage.
In Sita! Das v. Sant Ram(') the law was taken as wellsettled that succession to mahantship of a mutt or religious institution is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution
except where the rule of succession is laid down by the founder
himself who created the endowment. In that case the custom in
H
(') [19l!j F.C.R. 12.
(2) 70 I. A. 57.
(2) f>J I.A. 41R.
(4) ['959] S.C.R. 1125. '1?4.
(5) A.LR. I 954 s.c. 606.
-
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SAMBUDAM'JRTHI v. MADRAS (Ramaswami, J.)
427
matters of succession to mahantship was that the assembly of
bairagis and worshippers of the temple appointed the successor; but
the 'appointment had to be madyJrom the disciples of the deceased
mahant if he left any, and failing disciples, any one of his spiritual
kindred.
Such :a succession was described as not hereditary in
the sense that on the death of an existing mahant, his chela does
not succeed to the office as a matter of course, because the successor acquires a right only by appointment and the authority to appoint is vested in the assembly of the bairagis and the worshippers.
In Sri Mahan¢ Paramanda Das Goswami v. Radhakrishna Das(')
the Madras High Court took the view that where succession to the
mahantship is by nomi_nation by the holder in office, it was not a
hereditary succession. In that case Venkatasubba Rao, J. said :
"If the successor owes his title to nomination or appointment, that is, his succession depends on the volition
of the last incumbe~t and does not rest upon independent
title, I am inclined to the view that the office cannot be
said to be hereditary."
Krishnan J., stated as follows :
"Where succession is by nomination by the holder in
office of his successor it seems to be impossible to contend that it is a hereditary succession. Hereditary succession is succession by the heir to the deceased under
the law, the office must be transmitted to the successor
according to some definite rules of descent which by
their own force designate the person to succeed. There
need be no blood relationship between the deceased and
his successor but the right of the latter should not depend upon the choice of any individual."
It is true that the artificial definition of hereditary trustee in s. 6(9)
of the Act would include even such cases.
But the election to the office of trustee in the present case is for
a fixed period of one year and not for life. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the office of the appellant is hereditary within
the meaning of s. 6 ( 9) of the A~t. It is not possible to say that
there is a succession of A's office to another when on the effiux
of the period for which A was. appointed, there is a vacaacy and
B is elected to that vacancy.
It is quite possible that for that
vacancy A himself. might be re-elected because a_ retiring trustee
is eligible for re-election. The possibility of A being the successor
of A himself is not merely an anomaly, it is an impossible legal
position. No man can succeed to his own office. Jn Black's Law
Dictionary the word 'succession' is defined as follows :
H
"The devolution of title to property under the law
of descent and distribution.
() 51 M.LJ. 258.
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
The right by which one set of men may, by succeedA
ing another set, acquire a property in all the goods, movables, and other chattels of a corporation.
The fact of the transmission of the rights, estate, obligations, and cha-rges of a deceased person to his heir
or heirs."
The view we have taken is borne out by the reasoning of the
Madras High Court in State ofMadras v. Ramakrishna(').
For these reasons we hold that this appeal fails and must be
dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
0) I.L.R. [i957] Mad. 1084.
B
c
.,