| The appellant was elected as a trustee of a temple for one year. |
| The temple was rounded two hundred years ago by the members of the community and according to the usage of the temple, the trustees were elected for one year, at a meeting of the members of the community. |
| On the question whether the appellant has a hereditary trustee, because he was, under section 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 law are modified by usage, and succession has to be determined in accordance with the modified rules. |
| The office of a hereditary trustee is in the nature of property. |
| Succession in relation to property implies passing of an interest from one person to another. |
| [428 C D] In the present case, the election to the office was for a fixed period of one year. |
| In such a case, it is not possible to say there is a succession to the office, because: (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 trustee being reelected, an impossible legal position arises in which a person could be a successor of himself. |
| [429 F H] In re Hindu Women 's Right to Property Act, 1941 , Ganesh Chunder Dhur vs Lal Behary, 63 I.A. 448, Bhabatarini vs Ashalata, 70 I.A. 57, Angurbala Mullick vs Debabrata Mullick, 1134 and Sital Das vs Sant Ram, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 606 applied. |
| Shri Mahant Paramananda Das Goswwami vs Radhakrishna Das. , referred to. |
| State of Madras vs Ramakrishna, I.L.R. , approved. |
|
|
