Nallur Kandaswamy Kovil - Declared a Public Temple -

 Nallur Kandaswamy Kovil -  Declared a Public Temple - 
JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF Plaintiff
Judgment was delivered on Monday last by Mt. J. C. W. Rock,  District Judge, Jaffna, In the well-known Nallur Kandaswamy  Temple case instituted by Mr. C.K. Swaminathas of Nallur and six  others to have the Temple declared a charitable trust under the  Trusts Ordinance. The defendants are the present Manager, Mr.  Ragunatha Mappana Mudaliyar and his mother, Ponnuppillai widow  of the late Mr. Sangarapillai. 
The following are excerpts from the interesting judgment which  runs into several closely type written pages:- 
This is dispute regarding the Kandaswamy Temple at Nallur. The  issues are concerned not only wish the management of the temple,  but have reference to the origin and purpose of the foundation of  the fabric itself. Several issues have been framed in this ease; and  there are three partied to it. 
The ------- as members of the public, have availed themselves of  the provisions of section 102 of the Trusts Ordinance NO.9 of 1917  

ï™Öó£¡ 55 
and have –used the defendants in order to make them render an  account of their stewardship. The terming of issues, or rather the  question which issues should be trial first led to one appeal. Then a  question arose as to whether a trained party should be allowed to  participate in the proceedings and that led to another appeal. The  Third party consists of priests who lied No.17263 D. O. Jaffna (D  53) against the defendants. This point was left to the discretion of  the judge and the trial has at last processed without further with or  interruption. 

We may now try, as a preliminary step, the group of issues I to  12 which deal with the origin and character of the foundation of the  temple, and which may be comprehended in the simple question  whether the temple is a public charitable trust, or in other words,  what was be intention of the founders, and whether the circum 

stances indicate that the simple was public or a private foundation. 

The Kandaswamy Temple has achieved considerable celebrity  in this District and is something of a housened word among Hindus  of the Tamil community. It is mentioned on Para 173 of the Ceyion  Gazetteer of 1834 (P 33, - a compilation made by a Tamil gentle 

man of some standing-who quotes the words of an old missionary  Dr. Widslow:- 

‘There is a large Hindu temple, soared to Skanda, or, as he is  here called Kandaswamy ………… It is in great repute among the  native and the annual festival is attended by a large concourse of  people from district parts.’ Therefore, before plunging in Medias, it  would not be cut of place to trace its history in brief outline. 

HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE 

The date of the original foundation is largely a matter of conjec ture. Tamil history has not been committed to writing, and there are  no authoritative historical works. But the tradition with regard to the  name of the founder is firm. From the authority quoted above (P  33) we learn that Nallur was the seat of the Tamil kings and that the  Kandaswamy Temple was founded in the time of the first Chakra varthi or Tamil king, some centuries ago. Belief in this tradition is ev idenced in the irregular of the year 1902 prepared by the 1st defen-

56 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

dant’s father. Sangarappillai and produced in this case (P 8). There  he states that the actual founder was the Prime Minister Buvaneka  Babu , who dedicated at to the worship of the God Suppiramani am, more familiariy known as Kandaswamy. The Temple was de stroyed by the Portuguese on their invasion of Ceylon. They were  succeeded In 1658 by the Dutch (see Ceyion Manual for 1912-13p  302) Under the Dutch the temple was rebuilt on the same spot. The  attitude of the Dutch towards what they deemed heathen religions  was at the outset at any rate, intolerant. This attitude is shown in  the proclamation of 1711 (see Mutthukrishna’s Thesawalamai, p  708) of which the tenor is that any person professing the “worship  of gods or ceremonies of devils would, without mercy with regard to  persons, he put in inters”. Christians detested in initiatory were to  undergo severe corporal punishment; priests were to depart out of  the limits of the Government and never again appear in these parts.  Severe penalties are imposed for disobedience. 

This attitude, must, however, have been relaxed at a later date,  for permission was granted to rebuild the temple. The date of its  restoration can only be fixed approximate. In a petition to the British  Governor of Madras-at that time the British possession in Ceylon  were administered from Madras-in 1809 (D 15) Mappana Mudali 

yar, an ancestor of the defendants state that the temple was built 60  years before. This places the date of restoration at about the year  1742. The rival claimants, the Brahmin Priests stated in another  place that originally a small old (Canad) but was put up in place of  the ruined edifice and that the founder, his died in the year 1765 (D  1) and later the but was replaced by a more pretentious building.  This account suggests that the date 1742 is approximately correct,  and throws considerable light on the manner in which the temple  was resuscitated. But from the time the temple began to gain in  wealth and importance, there was constant tug of war between the  mappanar family on the one hand and the Brahmin’s priests on the  other. There was no question that the Mappanars had a right to  manage or that the priest’s had a right to officiate Differences arose  with regard to the distribution of power and division of the spoil, and  this state of things continued from generation to generation, until  the events which led to the present also. The management, how ever, must have given satisfaction on the whole, for there was no  interferences or attempted control by the public until the year 1876  (P.2) (D. 2 para 10).

ï™Öó£¡ 57 

At that time arose one Arumuga Navalar, an ardent Saivite, who  inaugurated, the religious revival, and was for a time of close friend  of the Mappanars. But certain practices at the temple aroused his  religious ire and he convened a public meeting at another temple,  called the Sivan temple, with the two fold purpose of reforming the  management and purifying the priesthood. The meeting selected  a Committee which appointed a smiler committee of three to take  fusion and case No 5090 (D 1) was brought. But Navalar died, and  the case came to nothing, subsequently an abortive campaign was  carried on by the witness Thillainathar Kalasaplliai, the son-in-law  (nephew of Navalar but no decisive steps was taken by the public  until the priests went on strike in 1922. In was then that the case No  17243 was instituted and that case is incorporated in this. A origin  is was in fact precipitated by the passing of the Trusts Ordinance  No. 9 of 1917. The Mappanars fearing that the ordinance would  load for interference from without begin to consolidate their claim  to increase control over the priests and their titled ownership of the  fabric of the temple and with this intent to exceed deeds to regulate  succession (D 9 & D 10) But the concession for in are is suce arose  when Arumugam brother of the 1st defendant built a schooner, Pre sumably out of temple funds and that was seized for his  personal debt and the schooner was investigator among the assets  for his private estate. The avoid best is now applied to settle the  question once and for all as to whether the public have any statue  or right to a voice in the management of the temple. 

GENEOLOGY OF THE MAPPANARS & BRAHMINS 

It is well an this stage to set out how the temple has been man aged since its resuscitation, and this cannot be better seen than by  setting down the pedigree of the Mappanars and the Brahmins side  by side, The point that calls for observation is that both the temple  to Management and to the priesthood had passed by hereditary  succession. It is also important to know that the partnership had  been marred by frequent disputed. The first of which we have re cord is that of 1809 already referred to (D. 15). Then there was an other dispute in 1851. The documents D 11, and D 14 suggest that  at one time the British Government exercised patterned away over  Hindu temple. It is not clear whether the Madras regulations No 7.  Of 1817 was proclaimed in Ceylon, but it was in the spirit of that reg ulation that the Bight Honorable Sir Thomas Mainland, Governor of 

58 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

Madras and Ceylon, issued the appointment dated 5.1.1807 (P. 31).  This was portably the signal for the beginning of appointment. The  Government in 1851, however, declined to interfere because there  was case pending in the Courts. Cases followed cauh other at reg 

ular interval, D, C 5700 In 1851 (D 23), D C. 5689 in 1854 (D 20), D  O 5090 in 1876 (D 1); D C, 22661, in 1891(D27); DO 24688 in 1894  (D 7 D 8 & D 2) and finally D C, 17263 recently (D 53) The signifi cance of these two factors – hereditary succession and hereditary  quarrels become apparent when we come to consider the date on  which the parties rely and admissibility of pertain documents. 

OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS 

The strength of a case is not necessarily measured by the mul tiplicity of documents. Quality must be prevailing factor. But both  sides have endeavored skillfully to create an atmosphere favour able to the reception of the documents and to build up a case which  martially depends on the interpretation of those documents. In the  process they have found it necessary to raise every possible ob jection to documents tendered by the other side. This is, intelligible  and reasonable because many of the events to which the without  use deposed are matters of tradition, and some of the documents  themselves cannot be regarded as original evidence. I have been  compelled reluctantly to mob out certain document, and even  where others are admitted their weight must to a certain extent he  discounted. 

The most important document that lends itself to objections is  the document P 25. This is an old document which purports to grant  permes in the year 1763 to Subbaiya Iyar and Nagamutta Iyar, two  Brahmin priests, ------ of the added defendants, to rebuild the Kan 

daswamy temple for religious worship I was inslited to accept this  because Mr. Rheimers, the Government Archivist has certified that  It “appear to have been issued by the Dutch Government” But I  am bound after hearing his evidence to reject it for the following  reasons:- 

• It purports to be argued by D Raket, whose corset name in  Bartholomew Jacobus Rakat; well it is not satisfactorily explained  how Raket come to stamp his name as Rakat.

ï™Öó£¡ 59 

• There are suspicious erasures on the ole. Some names  seem to have been soratohed out; and seen under a magnifying  glass, the name Raket seems to have been stamped over another  name. It is idle to conjecture the reason for this. 

• The dispute between the Mappanars and the Brahmins is  over a century old and it is strange that this document was never  before produced. This, and the first reasons are in my opinion good  grounds for declaring is a ever forgery. A fourth reason is that it  is now shown that it has come from proper custody. The witness  Thyagaraja Kurukkal says that he got it from his brother Subrsmani 

ya Kurukkal. But the latter has not come forward to explain where  he obtained it. It looks suspiciously like a document based on the  recital in paras 2 and 3 of D 1. However that may be it must be  rejected. 

Other documents successfully objected to are:- 

• An article from the Ceylon Antiquary which has no legal  grounds to recommend its admission; because the writer is anony mous. 

• A treaties by the well known Pandit, Mudaiyar Rasanayag am because it was written post liten motam. 

• Tamil history by on muthurasa kavirayar, because it is  recently printed and no old edition is produced. The resent printer is  witness Kailasapillai, a highly Interested party. 

Unsuccessful objections have been relied to P 1, P 2, P 3, P 4,  P 5, P 7, P 31, P 1, P 2, P 7 refer to public meetings sieged to have  been held in 1873, 1876 and 1892. I admit them as they relate to  facts of which witness was aware and in which he look an active  part. P 3, as may be gathered from the evidence of the 1st defen 

dant is a genuine document 1st defendant says the items on the list  are correct, but some of them repaired from time to time and under gone material change in the process The list was made at a time  when the then Mappanar was under the influence of Navalar and  that is the reason why it happens to be correct. It is not likely that  an outsider could have got such accurate information of the temple  possessions. P 4 and P 5 again relate to facts which the witness  know, Paradesl was a disciple of Navalar. He was apparently under 

60 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

a aloud for a short time. But there is no doubt that he took prom inent interest in the affairs of the temple although 1st defendant:  “Arulananda Paradesl was engaged a Kangani of the sculptors and  Kandiah Mappanar used to give him money to pay the sculptor. Pa raded a soaked with this authority used to go to the village and col lect money. Kandiah Mapparner found this own and dismissed him.  Paraduel is a Sanciaul who goes from place to place and bags his  food”. Most sympathetically interpreted this evidence means that  Parades was a sort of mendicant and holy man that he was interest ed in the collecting of she building funds but the Mappanar became  suspicious, perhaps for good reasons, but afterwards expectorated  pardesi. This is the substance of P 4 and P 5 and so 1st defendant’s  evidence indirectly support them I see no reason to reject them. But  since his documents have an important bearing on the question  what parts the public look in the management it is easy to see why  they are objected to From the same motive objection is taken to the  judgment P 36 but this was between the defendants and a member  of the public with whose ancestor there was agreement of 1873  (D 58) and is therefore admissible. So much for the objections to  plaintiff,’ documents.

ï™Öó£¡ 61 NALLUR KANDASWAMY TEMPLE CASE

DISPUTE OVER THE OWNERSHIP 

In the District Court of Jaffna before Mr. J. C. W. Rock,  the inquiry was concluded in the action known as the Nallur  Kandaswamy Temple Case in which Mr. C. K Swaminathan,  Headmaster, Ramanathan College, and six others filed ac 

tion against Mr. S. Ragunathan Mappana Mudaliyar and his  mother, Ponnupillai, to have the Nallur Kandaswamy Temple  declared a charitable trust under the Trusts Ordinance. Be fore this action was filed certain Brahmin priests who were  officiating in this Temple and left owing to the introduction of  another High Priest had filed an action to have themselves  declared entitled to the land on which the temple is built and  to the office of its difficiating priests. The plaintiff, in this case  were added parties in the above case. 

ARRAY OF COUNSELS, 

The plaintiffs were represented by Mr. A. v. Kulasingham  with Mr. M. Subramaniam, instructed by Mr. P. Caripillai. The  

62 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

defendants were represented by. Mr. F. A. Hayley, K. O., with  Hon. Mr. W. Darainwamy, Measts . P. Vytillagam, Spencer Ra jaratpam and A. S. Nalliah, B. Coomars enrier, and K. Some sandarem. The added parties were represented by Hon. Mr.  K. Balasingban, with Eton. Mr. S. Rajarainam, instructed by  Mr. K. Kanagasabai. 

The next witness called for the defendants was Mr. Kan dappa Chettiar Ponnusamy Chettiar (45), Manager of the Siv an Temple, Vannarponne. 

Mr. Hayley: Is that a very well known temple? – Yes, How  long have you been manage? – For the last 18 years. Is it a  public or private temple? – It is our own temple. 

Court: Family temple? – Yes, Who was the manager be fore you? –My father, my uncle, my grandiather. All in your  family? –Yes. About how many years is it said to have been  founded? – Hundred or hundred and fifty years. By whom?  Vaitllinga chettiar. You told us it a very well known temple.  Many people come to the temple? –Some people come. Not  largely attended? –NO. In comparison with the other tem ple what is the general popularity of this temple? –That is a  famous temple. It depends on the faith of the people in the  temple. How far from the Court is your temple? – About half  a mile. Do large numbers of people come to worship during  festivals? From 200 to 400 will attend. Has the public during  all this time claimed any right or exercise of management of  the temple? – NO, Sir, Do worshipers and members of the  congregation, do as in other temple? – They used to make  offering according to their vows, and perform care monies  and go away. 

During the festival, people do apishekam etc,? - Yes, You  know P.L.S.M.? – Yes. Have they given considerable gifts to  the temple? - They made a gift of a unganam. How long ago?  – Six years ago. Is that a valuable thing? – Worth over 200  rupees. Given by them as an offering to the temple? – Yes, 

ï™Öó£¡ 63 

on a certain vow You know the Nallur Kandaswamy temple?  – Yes. The proprietor of that temple and you had dealings  with one another? - Yes. You produce a deed of 21st October  1831 by which Mappana Mudaliar of the Kandeswamy Tem 

ple executed an indenture to Vaitllinga Chettiar Gopala Chet tiar of Vannarponne? – Yes was Vaitillinga Chettiar Gopals  Chettiar on of you ancestor? – Yes. He was manager of the  temple at that time? – Yes. In consideration of a place of land  Mappanar and his descendants agreed to perform a certain  ceremony? – Yes, my ancestors conveyed a land to Mappana  Mudaliar and empowered him to conduct a certain festival in  the Kandaswamy temple in our name. He undertook for his  descendants also to do that? – Yes, Have you any record, or  heard of, any meeting in your temple to control the affairs of  the Kandaswamy temple? – No, never heard of any such. 

Cross examined by Mr. Kulasingham: In the deed, Map pana Mudallar calls himself the maniam of the Kandaswamy  Temple? – Yes. How old were you in 1863 or 1876? – I was  not born then. Did you know Arumuga Navalar? – NO. Are  records kept—in the Sivan Tample? – Yes. Dating from 1878?  – All along. Do you say any meeting held under the presiden cy of Arumuga Navalar must be recorded in your records?  – Some notices, records etc. It will be painful to you to have  the Sivan Temple declared a public trust? – I would not feel  so, but the foundation of our temple is not subject to such  changes. 

But for some time nattukottai chetties managed your tem ple? – They had an attorney from us. The public was dissat isfied? – No, they had nothing to do with our temple, Why  did you give it to the Nattukottai Chettle? – My father was in  India, I was married in India and therefore we gave an attor ney to the Chettlad to manage for same time. You say the  public made no claim to your temple? - No. There was no  adjudication of your status as manager of the temple? – No,  but smong ourselves. Not between you and the public? – No.  Which temple is better attended?- Kandaswamy Temple? 

64 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

Why did you make that gift to the temple? - My ancestors  were anxious to perform certain ceremonies in the Kandas wamy temple and therefore they did it. 

It was Ramasamy Chettiar who handed over your temple  to the Nattukottai Chetties? – It was my father and uncle. High  festivals of Sivan Temple are paid out of temple funds? – Yes.  Not so at Nallur Kandaswamy temple? – I have no idea. I oc 

casionally go to worship there. Most of the properties belong ing to the Sivan Temple were donated by your ancestor? – All. 

The last witnessed examined for the defendants was Sina thamby Ramanathan, (51) Vacoinaior Nallur. 

Mr. Hayley: You know the Kandaswamy Temple? – Yes.  How far from the temple do you live? – About 100 yards. How  long have you lived there? – 27 years. Have you been a wor shiper in that temple? – Yes. How long? – About 32 years.  A regular worshiper? – Yes, when in this district, a daily wor shiper. You married in Nallur? – Yes. Was you father there?  – No, he was in Delf, Your father in laws family are regular  worshipers in the temple? – Yes. My father in law was a No tary public. Sangarappillai used to get deeds drawn by him. 

You know Sangarappillai personally? – Yes. You know the  Mappanar family during your time? – Yes. Continuing the wit ness said that the outsiders bad liken interest or interfered  in the affair of the Brahmin’s at ask work six years ago. One  Seventhipilli and another went to the witness and his cousin  to get signatures to a petitions for getting the Nallur Kandas wamy temple declared a public temple. He did not connect to  it nor did his cousin. He (wine a) know the witness Thyaga raja Kurukkal; and Seventhipillai was his friend and that the  latter went to the witness and his cousin at the Instigation of  one Kanapathipillai. The petition was taken round generally  in Nallur. As a member of the public he did not claim to a right  in the temple. 

Cress examined by Mr. Kulasingham the witness said that 

ï™Öó£¡ 65 

be used to go to the temple only as a worshiper. If the defen dant sold the image of Arumugasamy, witness would not like  it, and would not go to court on that account, for, what right  had he when the temple belonged to the defendant and his  ancestors. He (witness) had known first from his father -----  that the temple was their (defendants) own. The signatories  to the petition were all hooks in the hands of Thyegarajah  Kurukkal. 

Mr. Kulasingham: The original Petitioners were V.S.S.  Kumarasamy, advocate, member of Urban District Connoil  ………….. ………. Do you suggest he was a tool in Thyaga rajash Kurukkal’s hand ….. he late Mr. Saravanamuttu, Vice  principal Parameshwara College, Mr. P. K. Somasundaram,  Proctor? –  

Witness: All the signatories to the petition signed the pe tition at the request of Thyagarajsh Kurukkal, after the Brah mins were sent out of the temple. 

The petitioners are representative people? – They are not  representative of Nallur. 

The evidence for the defendants was closed on the eve ning of the 18th July, and the case was adjourned for hearing  to the 26th July when the counsels summed up their asses. 

The following is a summary of the address by the respec tive senior Counsels of both sides:- 

VENDETTA BETWEEN TWO FAMILIES 

Mr. Hayley addressed the Court for about four and a half  hours, dividing the issues into three parts, firstly, those which  he said were not proved by the plaint off, secondly, those  which required no proof, and thirdly, those which were pure 

ly legal. He urged that the whole dispute was a long drawn  out vendetta between two families. The late Arumuga Nav alar started a campalge against the former managers of the  Kandaswamy Temple, who were the ancestors of the present  defendants, and the witness, Mr. T. Kallavapillai, who was a  nephew of Arumuga Navalar, had continued in attacking the 

66 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° members of the Mappanar family. 

Referring to the first plaintiff Mr. Hayley said that he was  a canning man who did not give a direct answer to questions  and who had contrlbuted only a rupee for the last fourteen  years of his worship in the said temple. 

COMMENT ON ARCHIVIST’S EVIDENCE  

Mr. Hayley proceeded to comment on the evidence of the  Government Archivist who had been called to give export  opinion regarding a certain document produced by the plain tiffs, and who had stated that the document in question must  be admitted in evidence with great suspicion. Besides, that  document had not been proved according to law. Mr. Hayley  went on to quote a Supreme Court judgment and explained  that for a Hindu Temple to be a public one there must be  dedication to the public either by grant or immemorial usage.  In the case of that temple there was none. The plaintiffs had  not produced any documents or led any evidence to prove  such a dedication. He also went into the history of the tem 

ple, which was founded in the early part of the 17th century  and demolished by the Portuguese Government. The temple  was rebuilt and rounded on the very same site by Don Juan  Ragunatha Mappanar Mudaliyar, and when the English came  into occupation of this part of Jaffna, Regunatha Mappanar  Mudaliyar submitted a petition and the Collector of Jaffna, Mr.  P. A. Dyke, reported to Government that the petitioner had  founded the temple on his own land and at his own cost. 

PRIVATE OR PUBLIC 

Mr. Kulasingham in replying realized all his comments on  one issue, that is, whether the temple was a private or public  one. The temple he urged was built on a land called Kurukkal  Walavu belonging to the Brahmins, and was a public tem 

ple in that the public had contributed largely to its building,  the ornaments of the deity and other temporaries. The festi vals were conducted by the public and the public had every 

ï™Öó£¡ 67 

right to the control of the temple. In fact the first defendant  had also admitted in his evidence that he had received con tribution from the public for and on behalf of the temple. Mr.  Kulasingham further said that the petitioners were apprecia ble educated men of the peninsula among whom were Mr. V.  S. S. Coomaraswamy, Advocate and member of the Urban  District council, Mr. P. K.Somasundaram proctor, B.C, Mr. C.  K. Swaminathan, BA., and MR. C. Coomaraswamy, MA. He  urged that under those sir cumentances the Temple should  he declared a public charitable trust in terms of Ordinance  No.9 of 1917. 

Judgment was delivered this morning (Monday) and ap pear the where.

68 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° NALLUR KANDASWAMY KOVIL CASE

SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT FRAMED 

Mr. J. C. W. Rock, District Judge, Jaffna, delivered judg ment on Monday, the 10th instant, in the case in which Mr. C.  K. Swaminathan, Head-master, Ramanathan College, Chun nakam, and six others, members of the congregation of the  Nallur Kandaswamy Temple, sued the present Manager, Mr.  S. Ragunatha Mappana Mudaliyar, and his mother, Ponnup pillai, for a scheme of management to be settled by the Dis trict Court of Jaffna. 

The following is the full text of the Judgment:- 

We now come to the second part of this inquiry and the  second group of issues. In the fifth part we decided that the  Nallur Kandaswamy Temple and its temporaries form a public  charitable trust. The defendants have not appealed promptly  from that finding probably because they await the result of  the second part of the inquiry. Their line of action will depend  

ï™Öó£¡ 69 

upon the degree of outside interference (or lack of it) which  the Court imposes on the Manager of the Temple. The plain tiffs who are duly appointed representatives of the public de mand a scheme and outside interference. Their counsel has  more than once said that he did not insist on the 

APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE 

But some supervision from without, he maintains, must  be prescribed in the interest of the public. Mr. Hayley in ad dressing the Court on 26.7.28 contended that a scheme of  management could not be imposed on a hereditary Manager.  Mr. Duraswamy on 27.5.29 contended that a scheme could  not be imposed unless there was evidence of misappropri ation or of breach of trust. Mr. Kulasingham denied the cor rectness of both propositions. I agree with Mr. Kalagingham  on the following grounds: Sea 102 of the ordinance No 9 of  1907 provides that if the requirements of section 102 (3) are  satisfied the Court may call on the trustee for an accounting,  and enquire into the efficiency of the management and further  powers are granted under reaction to 105 and 108. It does  not seem to me make any difference whether be he heredi tary or not, so Jang as the trust is declared public. It the trust  he public and charitable it comes under the purview of the  aloresaid sections. The charge made against the manage ment may be grouped under the heads (A) Private Conduct  (B) Administration (C) Religions Practices 

PRIVATE CONDUCT 

The facts stated by plaintiffs witnesses are admitted by  the 1st defendant He admits that he is married to a wife and  keeps with her a concubine under the same roof. He Justi fies his conduct on the ground that his wife is capricious. The  only justification appears to be that his wife is go-willing to 

70 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

be a slave to his devastating passions. But be appears to be  on the side of the angels. The Brahmin’s Priest, Iswara Ku rukkal saya that such conduct is not morally reprehensive if  both women are treated equally well. Mr. Cumaraswamy, the  District Judge of Karanegala, himself a Tamil and acquainted  with Tamil customs does not go so far. He says that the first  defendant may be excused if his wife had proved to be bar ren. But 1st defendant bus not this excuse because his wife  bus borne him children. At both it may be said that this moral ity barks back to patriarchal time when Abraham might have  his Surah and his Heigar and other concubines. His counsel  seeks to support his position by quoting the customs of South  India. But that custom is not recognized in Jaffna 1st defen dant also imagines himself on the side of the gods. He says  bravely and mandselously that his deity Suppramaniam has  two consorts, 

THEN WHY NOT HR? 

But Soorates has told us that if a deity acts immorally we  ought not to revere that deity. I fear that the better opinion,  the opinion of today, is contrary to the morals of 1st defen dant, and his private life is public scandal. It is proved that the  procured one mistress with a pronote for Rs.1000 (P 46) and  after wards sought evade to payment. That mistress, Man ikkam, died and another has taken her place. It is not nec essary that he should be as devout as witness, Thiygarajth  Kurukkal, demands. But it is not his moral views which need  detain us. The real office is that by keeping mistresses on or  more and raising children by them (P 47) and (P 48) be is 

FORCED OR TEMPTED TO DRAW 

On temple funds for their maintenance and this is a use of  public funds to which exception might reasonably be taken, 

ï™Öó£¡ 71 

this fact affords sufficient ground for curtailing his personal  expenditure. There should be a limit to toleration. Again it is  proved that the defendant’s family had little landed property  of their (own), the list of property be ranging to his mother (D  66) contains 

COMPARATIVELY FEW LANDS 

And the total value is not great bat substantial dowry in  cash probably out of the temple funds was given to 1st defen dant’s sister (P 41) Also the 1st defendant’s father and broth er built themselves a house reported to be worth Rs.30000/-  with money admittedly drawn in part from temple funds. One  cannot grudge the Mappanars a fair remuneration for their  service, an honorable livelihood and an adequate format ed. But when we look at the dead of devolution No 1184 of  12.12.16 (D9) which discloses a determination to appropriate  reserve funds for the private use the 1st defendant and his  brother and is tantamount to a declaration of “no responsi bility” and a chalter get there it is clear the time has come to  place a limit to the trustees drawings on personal account 

(The charge grouped under (B) Administration and (C) Re ligious Preations will appear in our next issue-Ed. “H. O”) 

SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT 

The following is the text of the scheme of manage ment for the Nallur Kandaswamy Temple as ordered by the  District Judge:- 

The main features are that it defines the finial duties of  the Manager and appoints a Commissioner a Saivite of high  stanch Rand integrity to assist him in carrying them out.

72 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° DUTIES OF THE MANAGERS 

• He is to employ two clerks at salaries of Rs.35 to  Rs.50 a month. One clerk to be selected by himself and one  by the Commissioner, but both clerks should be subject to the  order of the Manager and the commissioner. 

• He is to prepare the following inventories:- 

• List of gold and silver offerings, jewels etc, with val ues, factual or estimated. (2) List of temple fixtures such as  care, Mandipam etc, and arrange for their proper custody in  the temple. (3) He must keep a stock book, showing provi sions etc purchased for performance of ceremonies and their  value. The stock must be kept in temple premises and val ue of stock bought and consumed must be transferred the  ledger. (4) He will keep a list of the live stock and show the  amounts spent on upkeep. Expenses must be transferred to  ledger. (5) He must keep a register of temple lands, show ing whether they are leased or nature of outivation and the  income derived therefrom. (6) He must take measures for  leasing, cultivating or otherwise disposing of paddy lands that  now appear to be neglected. Income from all lands and ex penses of upkeep must appear in Ledger. (7) He must keep a  charbroil of all employees in the temple, showing the salaries  paid to each. The signature of all payees should be obtained  in the Cheokroll itself. It necessary the salaries of the employ ees should be revised and the staff increased or reduced in  consultation with the Commissioner. 

PROPER ACCOUNT BOOKS 

• He must bring his accounts up to date and there af ter keep the following account books:- (a) A rough book (to  be written up by himself or by a clerk under his supervision)  showing all receipte and expenses. (b) An imprest book, to  be kept by the Manager himself or under his supervision to 

ï™Öó£¡ 73 

show amounts drawn by him and expended for temple pur poses and details of expenditure. Such amounts are not  to exceed Rs.1500 at any on time and no fresh imprest to  be drawn till the previous impurest has been checked and  passed by the Commissioner. The Manager shall not keep  in his hand at any time a sum exceeding Rs.1500/ and any  sum in excess of that sum must be deposited in the name of  the Manager is a bank approved by the Court. (c) A Journal  in which entries to he made daily from the rough book. (d) A  ledger, under which the different accounts will be arranged  and entered up from other bocks. (e) A counterfoil book of re 

ceipt-all disbursements excess of Rs.10/ must be supported  by receipts from the payees-all incomings must be witnessed  by receipts in the counterfoil book. (f) A bank pass book and  cheque book. (g) The Manager if he proposes to erect any  new structure, extension or improvement to the temple must  do so after consultation with the Commissioner and in the  event of a disagreement after party has the right 

TO REFORM THE MATTER TO COURT 

By way of petition. The Manager shall have discretion to  effect any minor repairs costing less than Rs.100/ but pay ment for such service must be supported by receipts No loans  shall be resied for the benefit of temple without the leave of  Count (10). He will be strike a balance monthly and effect  an agreement between Rough Book, Journal and ledger.  The said account signed by him will be countersigned by the  Commissioner’s. His duty will be to see that all items brought  to account have been duly purchased or consumed or both  and all liabilities duly incurred and met. (11) The Manager will  not alternate, gift or mortgage any temple property, movable  or immovable without the leave of Court. (12) At the end of  the year and on or before the 20th day of the month following  the a case year, the Manager will prepare an annual balance  sheet in duplicate and publish one in the temple for informa-

74 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

tion of the congregation, and forward the other through the  Commissioner to Court. The Commissioner will forward the  name to Court with His observations. (13) The drawings of  the Manager for himself and 2nd defendant, on personal ac 

count 

MUST NOT EXCEED Rs.1000/. A Year or Rs.333/33 a  month or 10% of the gross income whichever is greater. He  will also be allowed Rs.30 a month for traveling. (14) The  Manger’s personal expenditure will but appear in these ac 

counts, but only his drawings from time to time. (15) If at any  time the Manager omits or declines to carry out the above  instructions or commit  

CHARGES ------- THE MANAGEMENT 

Mr. J. C. W. Rack, District Judge, Jaffna delivered judg ment on Monday, the 10th instant, in the case in which Mr. G.  K. Swaminathana, ----- --------- ----- ---------- College, Chun nakam, and six others, members of the congregation of the  Nallur Kandaswarmy Temple, sued the present Manager, Mr.  S. Ragunatha Mappana Mudaliyar, and his mother, Ponnup pillai, for a scheme of management to be settled by the Dis trict Court of Jaffna.

ï™Öó£¡ 75 ADMINISTRATION 

The charge against the trustees administration is dis cussed under various sub heads and regarding the custody  of Temple property the Judge states: 

The ousted of temple properly is inadequate valuable arti cles, which ought to be in a safe or strong room of the temple  are kept in the manager’s house. His care essence in detail  is almost criminal. He keeps no inventory of temple articles,  of gold and silver offerings, furniture, and furnishings, no list  of stores or live stock, no check roll or list of employees with  their salaries no block book showing amount, of paddy etc,  needed for poppas and other ceremonies in an obvious ne cessity. And again, goods that should be kept in a store room  of the temple are kept in his house. 

SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING 

There is practically none. 1st defendant has departed from  the method used by his brother and adopts a crude method,  showing daily balance in head. It is not at all certain, from the  way in which he sought his clerk’s assistance, that he under-

76 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

stands the accounts himself. I am inclined to think that the  present hand to month method is adopted owing to the igno rance both of the 1st defendant and his clerk 1st defendant is  a poorly educated man, who does not worry about accounts  possibly because he does not understand them. The result is  that he has no paper idea of estimating profits of a year, or  arranging a programmer or annual expenditure and his ac counts need a complete overhauling. The entries, such as  they are not sufficiently descriptive, and often throw no light  on how the money is spent 

After discussing certain points regarding the Tank and the  bell the Judge says, the electricity and the water service are  improvements to be commended 

But private accounts and temple accounts are inextricably  mixed up. The item Rs.310050 on the account of 1921 is, ac cording to 1st defendant, money spent in building the house.  But it seems more likely to be the household expenses for  the year. 

THE MAJOORA VIJAYAN 

The same confusion between temple and private property  appears in the matter of the “selling vessel”. “Majoora Vijayan”  This was built by the late Arumugam at a cost of Rs.60000 in  pursuance of a desire to rebuild or renovate the temple. The  court held in D. C. (T, 4713 (P 4 and P 56) that the vessel was  private property. Yet 1st defendant, continues to pay the debt  out of temple funds. The position is ambiguous. 

FUNDS MISAPPLIED 

Whether the money is due from the temple or not, both  1st defendant and his brother are guilty of an improvement  and speculative undertaking which they entered into without  proper banking if they hoped to make money out of the vessel  they have been disappointed. The funds of the temple have  been misapplied. The public have a right to ask that the blun-

ï™Öó£¡ 77 der should not be allowed to be repeated. 

LOCAL DEVOTEES NOT INDIFFERENT 

 These are the main points for consideration in weighing  the question whether 1st defendant’s administration justifies  interference Most of defendant’s witnesses who say that no  interference is necessary to wit Mr. C. O. Maraswamy, Mr.  Somasundram, Mr. Muttu temple do not live in Jaffna and  have not live a for years and their remarks to the efter that  the temple is well managed only refer to the keeping of the  time table of poojahs and outward observances of religious  worship. About the correct keeping of accounts or collection  of income they know nothing and care less. But local devote a  are not so indifferent Otherwise these proceedings would not  have proceeded so far and at such coat. It is true that no ac tual misappropriate privation has been proved. But that does  not mean that 1st defendant’s management of the finances  of the temple has been satisfactory of that public confidence  has been gained. I have pointed out above in what respeals  improvements is necessary. The influence of the Mappaners  has long staved off enquiry but they could not do so for ever  Mr. Coomarswamy thinks the time is not ripe for a Commit tee. I agree with him but that it is not because the affairs of  the temple would not be better managed by a committee and  have always have managed without protest (see P55 and  D67) but because 1st defendant would be incompatible. He  is hardly sufficiently educated to work with a Committee – it  required a literate and intelligent man to ---- he would either  be --- or ignored by a Committee or he would suck and ob struct. He threatens “co” walk our” if a Committee or an audi 

tor is appointed. Be much the worse for him. If he will not but  under advise, he must be assisted on the road to better man agement. The time has come for a general reckoning and  overbearing of accounts. By this means public confidence  and increased public support will be ----- and increased public  support will be ---- The question is how, but I leave that --- for  consideration hereafter

78 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, 

Just as I do not feel it may duty to safe the household of  1st defendant, so I do think I am called on to reform the reli gion practices of this temple. The poojas it he been said are  satisfactorily performed; I plaintiffs object to 2 ancient cus toms --- sacrifices and nautoh daccers, devadasis ---- cor rect. Both however appear to be ---- parts of certain cere monies-the God in --- Car demands blood and the dancing  like phallic worship, is a symbol of creative and other natural  powers (Compare P54 and D70 P50 and D71.) To abolish  these the combined action is necessary. It is not a matter in  which I can intervate. The Court must not he the medium of  religious intolerance or religions reform. 

Before proceeding to outline a scheme of --- management,  the judge proceeds to answer the --- of issues regarding the  misappropriation of --- sums of money and failure to keep  ---- accounts. 

The answer to the issue is that the defending have applied  large sums to their own ---- without rendering a fall account.  They have elected some lands and some donors. 

LACK OF PROPERTY 

Issue 21 alleges that 1st defendant ------- for management  by reason of (1) lack of suffi---- properly of his own. 

• His adulterous life; () his illiteracy. 

The only properly he mentions is that of --- wife who re ceived in dowry and which he --- mortgaged in 1915 for the  purposes, the Judge ---- not think that lack of property is a ----  fication. That lack is itself a proof that he and his family have  lived in public charity. 

As to his private life he has already dealt with that.

ï™Öó£¡ 79 NOT LACKING IN COMMON SENSE 

He is not literate, but he does not lack commonsense. Sine  he took over management he had been involved in litigation  with the priests and --- the plaintiffs and he has succeeded in  gaining the support of several influential persons. Therefore  he cannot be altogether a fool. He is not --- man that I should  select if the choice were open between several candidates  but since by ----- of birth he happens to be manager, I do not  --- saffialent reason to remove him. But if he ---- mains of his  own accord. I think it necessary --- lay down certain rules for  his guidance. It is --- that his religious beliefs are at the level  of ---- primitive superstitions but so are these of ---- majority  of his constituents. Even the naut --- dancers have their fol lowing:- 

Issue 22 eske if he has conducted the management. 

• Honestly; (2) Regularly and diligently and (3) To the  satisfaction of the Hindu worshiping public, it is stated that the  manager’s accounts were too unsatisfactory to say that his  conduct of affairs was above board. 

SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT NECESSARY 

In issue 23 I would hold, as above, that 1st defendant is  sensitized to be confirmed but under conditions. In many opin ion (issues 26 and 28) the management had been such as to  necessitate a schema and there has been serious --manage ment at one point. I refer to the schooner. The more one look  at that transaction the more on satisfactory it appears. The  1st deft Shi to the responsibility on to Arumugam, but he was  a party to the bond and the transaction is symptomatic of a  change in the attitude of the Mappaners. The evidence given  by Arumugam in 1919 (57) shows that, apart from the trans porting of graces the object of the management was to trade  and make money by transporting produce. At one time the 

80 Þôƒ¬è ï™Ö˜ è‰îê£I «è£M™ õö‚° 

carge was paddy and another time timber and there seems  to have been money in it. But Arumugam was inexperienced  or unlucky. The best was registered as his private property,  but the burden of debt seems to have fallen on the temple.  1st defendant was more shrewd. He spent money by building  expensive improvements within the collection. I have passed  the tank as an improvement, but undoubtedly there is room  for questioning whether such a building structure was neces 

sary and whether the money could not have been better ----- ---. The upshot however is that there is powerful justification  for holding that the spending of such large some should not  to left in the sole discretion of the manager. The object of the  directions that follow is to place the financial arrangements of  the temple on a better footing as to instruct the manager who  will it is hoped realise where the improvement lies and give  his ---------- -------- and at the same time satisfy every location  of the public”, - C. M. L. Cutting.