Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a temple in Andhra Pradesh and its former non-hereditary trustees. The appellant, Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple, represented by its present trustees, sued the respondent, Induru Pattabhirami Reddy, a former managing trustee, and others for rendition of accounts of their management. The former trustees had functioned for a term ending in January 1951, and the new trustees were appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on January 21, 1951, but obtained possession of the temple only on July 21, 1952. The new trustees filed O.S. No. 246 of 1953 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Nellore seeking three reliefs: a direction to render accounts and pay amounts due; assessment of damages for malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance; and delivery of documents, registers, jewels and movable properties. The plaint alleged acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance and gross negligence. The defendants pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in a civil court under Section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Subordinate Judge held the suit maintainable and passed a preliminary decree on August 12, 1953, directing the defendants to render accounts from the beginning of 1946 until July 1952 and to pay amounts found due. The first defendant, the ex-managing trustee, appealed to the District Judge, Nellore. During the appeal, the plaint was amended and the prayer for damages was deleted; the advocate for the plaintiffs endorsed that the damages claim was given up. The District Judge confirmed the trial court's decree. On second appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the suit for back accounting did not lie, as the plaintiffs had given up the plea of negligence and wilful default, and set aside the decrees. The temple appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered two main issues: whether present trustees can demand rendition of accounts from ex-trustees without alleging negligence or wilful default, and whether Section 93 of the Act barred the suit. The Court held that no trustee can get a discharge unless he renders accounts of his management, and this liability is irrespective of any question of negligence or wilful default. The ex-trustees had admittedly not given an account of their management despite handing over possession in 1952, and were therefore liable to render accounts to the present trustees. The period for which accounts should be rendered was within the discretion of the lower courts, and there was no justification to interfere. On the bar under Section 93, the Court held that the section only imposes a restriction on suits or other legal proceedings in respect of matters for which a provision has been made in the Act. Chapter VII of the Act, relied upon by the defendants, did not provide for determining or deciding a dispute in respect of rendition of accounts by an ex-trustee to the present trustee, and therefore did not bar the suit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree.
Headnote
A) Trust Law - Ex-Trustee Accountability - General Principle of Trust Law - No trustee can obtain discharge without rendering accounts of management; liability irrespective of negligence or willful default - General Law - The respondent and other ex-trustees managed the temple for a term ending January 1951 and handed over possession in July 1952 without rendering accounts; the present trustees sued for rendition of accounts; the trial court and first appellate court directed accounts from 1946 to July 1952; the High Court held no liability absent negligence; the Supreme Court reversed, holding that ex-trustees are liable to render accounts and that the period is within lower courts' discretion - Held that the suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable and ex-trustees must account (Paras not available). B) Statutory Interpretation - Bar of Suits under Section 93 - Restrictive Scope - Section 93 imposes restriction only on suits or legal proceedings in respect of matters for which a provision has been made in the Act - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Section 93 and Chapter VII - The High Court treated Section 93 as barring the suit for accounts; the Supreme Court examined the legislative history and scope of Section 93 and held that Chapter VII does not provide for determining or deciding a dispute in respect of rendition of accounts by an ex-trustee to a present trustee; hence the suit was not barred - Held that Section 93 is not a bar to the maintainability of the suit (Paras not available). C) Civil Procedure - Amendment and Concession - Effect of Giving Up Claim - Once a party gives up a claim or plea, the court decides only the remaining reliefs - General Law - The appellant had initially alleged misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance and claimed damages, but the plaint was amended to delete the damages claim; the advocate for the appellant made an unambiguous concession before the High Court that the plea of wilful default was given up and the relief confined to rendition of accounts; the Supreme Court accepted the concession and considered only the liability to account without allegations of negligence or wilful default - Held that the court should proceed on the basis of the counsel's concession (Paras not available).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit lies at the instance of present trustees of a temple for rendition of accounts of management by ex-trustees without alleging negligence or wilful default; whether Section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 bars such suit
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that the suit for rendition of accounts by present trustees against ex-trustees was maintainable; ex-trustees were liable to render accounts irrespective of negligence or wilful default; Section 93 did not bar the suit; the trial court's decree was restored.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- No trustee can get discharge without rendering accounts irrespective of negligence or wilful default
- liability to account is a general principle of trust law
- Section 93 of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act
- 1951 restricts only suits in respect of matters for which provision made in Act
- Chapter VII does not provide for rendition of accounts by ex-trustees to present trustees
- suit under general law maintainable
- period of accounting within lower courts' discretion
