Vs.

Judges:

Date of Judgment: Feb 17, 2000

RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS LAW
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951
Section 103 – Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 6 – Religious endowments – Excepted temple – Nomination of trustees – Repeal of 1926 Act – Effect – Repeal of 1926 Act is subject to the conditions specified in Section 103 of 1951 Act – A person nominated by the Board of Trustees is no longer to be treated as hereditary trustee – Section 103(a) of 1951 Act departs from the scheme of 1926 Act. Held. Trustees nominated subsequent to commence-ment of 1951 Act by the Board of hereditary trustees governed by Section 6(a) of 1951 Act and not Section 9(6) of 1926 Act. Board of Trustees under the new Act has right to nominate persons as trustees. Such trustees would be non-hereditary trustees.

After the commencement of the 1951 Act, the definition of ‘hereditary trustee’ contained in sub-clause (9) of Section 6 of that Act did not recognise a person who was nominated by other trustee, as ‘hereditary trustees’. Thus, so far those trustees nominated by the said five persons after the 1951 Act are con-cerned, they being persons nominated by the trustees who were nominated by Venkatarangaiah’s nominees, in our view, would not be ‘hereditary trustees’ under Section 6(9) of the 1951 Act. (Para 22)

It is true that rights vested in any person or authority under a repealed Statute are not to be deemed to be interfered with by the repealing Statute, unless there is any provision in the repealing Statute which expressly or by necessary implication interfere with the rights accrued to any persons or body under a repealed Statute of 1927. But in our view, the language contained in sub-clause (a) of Section 103 of 1951 Act evinces a clear intention to depart from the scheme of the 1927 Act and no longer to call the persons nominated by the Board of ‘hereditary trustees’ after 1951 as ‘hereditary trustees’. In other words, if any trustees are nominated subsequent to the commencement of 1951 Act, by the Board of hereditary trustees, (who came into office pursuant to the Will of Venkatarangaiah or their nominees) then those persons would not be governed by the definition of sub-clause (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, but will be governed by Section 6 (9) of the 1951 Act. Such persons cannot be described as ‘hereditary trustees’ inasmuch as by altering the definition of ‘hereditary trustees’, the 1951 Act has chosen to interfere with an existing right of Board to nominate fresh trustees as ‘hereditary trustees’. We, therefore, hold that if any trustees has been nominated subsequent to the commencement of the 1951 Act, by the Board of Trustees who were in office prior to the 1951 or by their nominees then such persons could not be called ‘hereditary trustee’ within the meaning of sub-clause (6) of Section 9 of 1951 Act. Similarly, if the persons who were them-selves not hereditary trustees after the 1951 Act, either by themselves or along with other hereditary trustees after 1951, nominated trustees , then such trustees would not be hereditary trustees. The position is no different after the 1959 Act. (Paras 24, 25)

It will be open to the nominated five trustees in office, from time to time to nominate fresh trustees whenever there is any vacancy in these five offices of trustees. Such persons can be trustees but cannot be called ‘hereditary trustees’. They will have to be described as non-hereditary trustees’. What their rights are will necessarily have to be governed by the provisions of the statute. We need not go into the question as to their rights. Suffice to say that they are not ‘hereditary trustees’. (Para 27)