- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A. Santhalva v. Manjanna Shetty
Concise Analytical Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal concerns the validity of an appointment of a temple trustee (moktessor) made by two members of a temple committee that had been originally appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1863. At the time of the appointment there were only two members present (or surviving) though originally the committee had consisted of three members, the minimum number required by Section 7. The District Judge held that the appointment made by the two surviving members was not valid. The present appeal challenged that holding. Mr. Sundara Iyer argued for the validity of the appointment before this Court. The Court reviewed Sections 7 and 10 of the Act of 1863, considered authorities and principles relied upon by counsel, and dismissed the appeal with costs, agreeing with the District Judge that the appointment was invalid.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appointment of a trustee of a temple made by two members of a committee (originally appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1863 as a committee of three) is valid when the committee, at the time of the appointment, consisted only of two surviving members and the vacancy created by the missing member had not been filled in accordance with Section 10.
- Whether the statutory requirements in Sections 7 and 10 of the Act of 1863 (relating to the number of committee members and the mechanism/timetable for filling vacancies) are mandatory (imperative) or merely directory.
- Whether principles governing corporate bodies (including rules about majority of original corporators and quorum) apply by analogy to statutory committees appointed under Sections 7 and 10 of the Act of 1863 such that surviving members forming a majority of the original members can exercise committee powers.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. Sundara Iyer)
- Once the Local Government originally appointed a committee of three members (a valid appointment under Section 7), the surviving members (even if reduced in number) are not thereby incapacitated from exercising the powers vested in the committee by the Act merely because a vacancy has not been filled in accordance with Section 10.
- Because two surviving members constitute a majority of the original three, and because (if three were present) a quorum or meeting of two would be sufficient to exercise committee powers, the two surviving members should be able to exercise the committee's powers despite the vacancy.
- He relied upon the law applicable to corporate bodies and cited authority (The King v. Bellringer and Bacon's Abridgement) to support the proposition that, so long as a sufficient number of original corporators remain to form a majority, the corporate body continues to exist and can act — and he sought to apply that principle by analogy to the statutory committee.
This opinion does not contain a detailed account of opposing party submissions beyond the District Judge's holding that the appointment was invalid; the Court's reasons reject the appellant's contentions as described above.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| The King v. Bellringer, 4 T.R. 810 : 100 E.R. 1315 | Principle (in the context of a corporate body) that where a charter prescribes a definite corporate body (e.g., 36 members), a majority of the whole number must meet to form an elective assembly; if the corporation is so reduced that such a majority is not available, no election can be held. | The Court described this as authority for the proposition that, in corporate bodies, reduction below the required majority prevents corporate action. It distinguished the appellant's converse proposition (that a surviving majority of original corporators can act) and declined to accept that converse proposition as applicable to the statutory committee under the Act of 1863. |
| Anantanarnyana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Pillai, 22 M. 481 | Observation that committees constituted under the Act are not strictly corporations but "ought to be looked upon in the light of and be governed by the rules applicable to, regular corporations" (a guarded observation made with reference to the matter in hand). | The Court regarded this as a limited, guarded observation about procedure. It held that the observation was made with reference to a procedural matter and should not be extended to decide the capacity question in the present case; the Court refused to apply the corporate-body rule wholesale to the statutory committee's capacity to act when reduced in number. |
| Anantanarayana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Filial, 22 M. 481 | Decision (described in the opinion) that where a committee duly constituted of seven fixed by resolution that three should form a quorum, a later meeting at which three members attended and passed a resolution was binding — interpreted as a rule about procedure and quorum fixed by the committee. | The Court treated this decision as addressing procedural rules (quorum and mode of transacting business) for a committee already validly constituted. It held that the case did not authorize treating a committee reduced below the statutory minimum as the committee for purposes of exercising the statutory powers. |
| Ananlamarayana Ayyar v. Kitttalam Pillai, 22 M. 841 | (Referenced by counsel) An attempted reference to the same line of authorities on committee procedure and analogy with corporations. | The Court observed that such authorities concern procedure and cannot be extended to validate acts done by a committee that does not meet the statutory requirements as to number; the Court did not accept that the corporate-body rule controls the statutory scheme under Sections 7 and 10. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeds from a textual reading of Sections 7 and 10 of the Act of 1863 and from the statutory scheme as a whole:
- Statutory framework: Section 7 authorizes the Local Government to appoint a committee that "shall consist of three or more persons" to exercise certain powers previously vested in the Board of Revenue and local agents. Section 10 prescribes the process for filling vacancies: the remaining members must give public notice, fix an election day within three months of the vacancy, and, if they fail to fill the vacancy within three months, the Civil Court may appoint a person or order the committee to fill the vacancy.
- Effect of the provisions read together: The Court concluded that the combined effect of Sections 7 and 10 is that the surviving members are under an imperative duty to act promptly so that the election date is fixed within three months. If they fail to do so, their powers of election are lost and only the Civil Court can fill the vacancy. The statutory scheme thus contemplates that the original number of members (i.e., the minimum number appointed under Section 7) must exist for the committee to exercise the statutory powers.
- Mandatory versus directory: The Court refused the appellant's submission that the provisions are merely directory. On construction of the two sections together, the Court read them as imperative (obligatory), not directory. The Court emphasized that inconvenience in administration would not justify departing from the plain language of the statute.
- Analogy to corporate law rejected for this context: The appellant relied upon corporate principles (and The King v. Bellringer) to argue that a surviving majority of original members can act. The Court distinguished those authorities: where cited cases dealt with corporations and certain procedural matters, they did not control the interpretation of the statutory scheme in the Act of 1863. The Court noted that decisions such as Anantanarnyana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Pillai related to procedural rules (e.g., a committee fixing a quorum by resolution) for a body already validly constituted, not to the question whether a committee reduced below the statutory minimum can be treated as the committee for exercising substantive statutory powers.
- Conclusion on application to facts: Because the committee in the present case had been reduced below the number required by Section 7 and the vacancy had not been filled in accordance with Section 10, the two surviving members could not be treated as the committee entitled to exercise the statutory powers; therefore the appointment of the plaintiff as trustee by those two members was invalid. The District Judge's decision to that effect was correct.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal and agreed with the District Judge that the appointment of the trustee made by the two surviving members of a committee originally appointed as a committee of three under Section 7 of the Act of 1863 was invalid. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Implications / Direct consequences:
- The immediate consequence is that the appointment of the plaintiff as moktessor/trustee by the two surviving members is void and the suit dismissing that appointment was rightly decided by the District Judge.
- The Court construed Sections 7 and 10 as obligatory in requiring the committee to consist of the original number appointed (or to have vacancies promptly filled in the manner prescribed); surviving members reduced below that number cannot exercise the committee's statutory powers until the vacancy is validly filled (either by election as required or by order of the Civil Court where applicable).
- The Court declined to apply, by direct analogy, general corporate-law rules about surviving majorities to the statutory committee's capacity to exercise statutory powers; it treated analogous corporate authorities as addressing different concerns (procedural rules for bodies properly constituted) and therefore distinguished them from the present statutory question.
No other broader implications were discussed in the opinion; the Court confined its decision to the statutory interpretation and the validity of the appointment in the facts before it.
1. The main question raised in this appeal is, no doubt, one of great importance, and, so far as we know", the question in this precise form has never come before the Courts for determination. But as we had the benefit of bearing the question fully argued by Mr. Sundara Iyer and as we have made up our minds with regard to it we do not think any advantage is to be gained by further consideration of the point. The question is whether the appointment of a trustee of a temple, which is made by two members of a temple committee appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1863, there being only two members of the committee at the time the appointment was made, who had, we may take it, purported to act as the committee although, in fact, they were only two out of the three originally appointed, whether an appointment in such circumstances is good. The learned District Judge held that it is not and I think that he is right.
2. Section 7 of the Act of 1863 provides that the Local Government, in certain circumstances, is once for all to appoint a committee to exercise the powers of the Board of Revenue and the local Agents under the Regulations which were repealed by the Act". The section goes on to enact, that the committee shall consist of three or more porsons and subject to an exception shall perform all the duties imposed on the Board of Revenue and the local Agents.
3. Section 10 provides that whenever a vacancy occurs among the members of a committee so appointed, a new member shall be elected to fill the vacancy by the persons interested. It enacts that the remaining members of the committee shall, as soon as possible, give public notice of the vacancy and shall fix a day, which shall not be later than three months from the date of the vacancy, for an election of a new member by the persons interested. The section further provides that if a vacancy is not filled up by such election within three months after it has occurred, the Civil Court on the application of any person whatever may appoint a person to fill the vacancy or may order that the vacancy be forthwith filled up by the remaining members of the committee and if the order be not complied with, the Civil Court may appoint a member to fill the said vacancy. The effect of these two provisions, therefore, is that the surviving members must act so that the date of the election shall be fixed not later than three months from the date of the vacancy. If they do not so act, their powers of election are gone, and then, unless the Civil Court takes proceedings on the application of somebody and appoints a person, there is no power to fill up the vacancy.
4. Now the first point raised by Mr. Sundara Iyer was this; the law required that the original committee appointed by the Local Government should consist of three members and he did not contend that an appointment by the Local Government of a committee which consisted of less than three members would be a good exercise of the powers given them by the Act or would be a good appointment of a committee. But he argued when once we have an original appointment of three by the Local Government, then the fact that a vacancy is not filled up in pursuance of the provisions of section 10 does not incapacitate the surviving members from exercising the powers referred to in Section 7 of the Act. In other words, he contended that so long as the original appointment of the committee consisted of three, the committee consisting of two of the surviving members was a good committee and could exercise the powers conferred by the Act. Now the logical conclusion of that argument, of course, is, as Mr. Sundara Iyer conceded, that a committee which had been reduced in number to one would be a body capable of discharging the powers conferred by the Act, and that is a somewhat startling proposition. It seems to me the question whether provisions of this sort are obligatory and imperative or are merely directory must be determined with reference to the words of the particular enactment or the particular settlement in which they occur. Mr. Sundara Iyer has contended that the provisions are directory. It seems to me in construing the two sections of the Act together that they must be read as imperative or obligatory.
5. Then Mr. Sundara Iyer's second contention was that in this case we have an original appointment of three which is good and we have two surviving members and these two surviving members constitute the majority of the original three. He contended that inasmuch as if there had been three members still forming the committee a quorum or a meeting of two could exercise the powers of the committee it followed that the two surviving members of the committee, notwithstanding the fact that one is dead, could exercise the powers given to the committee, I am not prepared to accept that contention. In support of it, Mr. Sundara Iyer referred to the principles of the law which governed the question of the validity of the acts done by the members of a corporate body and he referred us to the case of The King v. Bellringer 4 T.R. 810 : 100 E.R. 1315. In that case it was held that where a charter requires that the Mayor and Common Clerk for the time being and the Common Council for the time being or the major part of them should elect; and the Common Council was a definite body consisting of 36, it was held that a majority of the whole number must meet to form an elective assembly; and that if the corporation be so reduced as that so many do not remain no election can be had at all.
All that was decided in that case was that in the case of a corporate body where the number of the corporators is so reduced that, having regard to the original number, a majority is not available, the corporation cannot act as a corporate body. Mr. Sundara Aiyar's proposition is the converse proposition that so long as there is a sufficient number of the corporators to form a majority of the corporators having regard to the original number of the corporators then the surviving members can act as a corporate body and he says that for the purpose of determining the question raised in this appeal we must apply that principle to this case. He referred us to an observation made by the learned Judges who decided the case of Anantanarnyana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Pillai 22 M. 481. That Was a case which arose under the Act now in question and the observation is as follows: Though committees constituted under the Act are not strictly corporations, there can be no doubt that, with reference to the matter in hand, such committees ought to be looked upon in the light of and be governed by the rules applicable to, regular corporations.It is a guarded observation and it was made with reference to the matter in hand. Now what was the matter in hand? In that case a committee had been validly constituted under the Act of 1863 consisting of seven. A meeting was held, the committee, at the time the meeting was held, being a full and complete committee. At the meeting five were present and a resolution was unanimously passed that at future meetings three should form a quorum. A future meeting of the committee of which due notice had been given to all the members of the committee, was held and at that meeting three members of the committee attended and those three members duly passed a resolution and that resolution was held by the Court in Anantanarayana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Filial 22 M. 481 to be binding on the committee. That was all that was decided in that case. It seems that there the learned Judges were dealing with a question of procedure; and what they meant to lay down was that on questions of procedure the Statutory committee appointed under the Act of 1863 must be deemed to have the same powers as a corporrate body. I do not think the learned Judges intended to go beyond that. I certainly cannot accede to the suggestion that the law governing corporate bodies with regard to the capacity of the members of the corporate bodies to act which is laid down, amongst other places, in a passage in Bacon's Abridgement Vol. II, page 285, to which Mr. Sundara Iyer referred, is applicable to the case of the Statutory body appointed under the Act of 1863. With regard to this question I think the District Judge's decision is correct and I would dismiss this appeal with costs. It is not necessary for us to consider the other points raised in the appeal.
Abdur Rahim, J.
6. I quite agree in the judgment proposed by the learned Chief Justice. But as the question is one of importance and is not covered by any decision, to which we have been referred, I think, I ought to state my reasons.
7. It seems to me that, reading Sections 7 and 10 of the Religious Endowments Act together, there can be very little doubt that the legislature requires that the committee which is vested with the power formerly exercised by the Board of Revenue should consist of the same number as were originally appointed by the Local Government. The Government, it is conceded, cannot appoint a committee consisting of less than three members. That, I take it, is clear from Section 7. Then Section 10 says that whenever there is a vacancy in the committee it is to be filled by an appointment made by the remaining members of the committee who are to take steps for this purpose within three months of the occurrence of the vacancy. If they fail to take such steps, the Civil Court is then empowered to make the appointment or to direct the committee to make the appointment. There cannot thus be any doubt that the legislature contemplated that the original number of members must exist for the purpose of exercising the powers of the committee under the Act.
8. Great stress has been laid by Mr. Sundara Iyer on the inconvenience that might be caused in the management of institutions if the surviving members of the committee be held to be incompetent to act as the committee during the pendency of the appointment. Supposing there would be some inconvenience, that, in itself, would not justify us in placing an interpretation upon the enacting provisions of the Act other than what is called for by their plain language. But it may be said that considering that the committee are merely a supervising authority and as there is always to be a trustee or manager or superintendent to carry on the business of the institution, the inconvenience caused, if any, would not be considerable. The fact that the remaining members of the committee are required to act with promptitude while it shows that the legislature was alive to the possibility of inconvenience arising in the interval also indicates the intention of the legislature to be that the committee shall not consist of less than the number originally appointed.
9. We have been referred to the English rule relating to corporations. But it appears to me that, so far as the present question is concerned, we cannot derive much help from the analogy of corporations. The rule that has been referred to is that if the number of corporators does not fall below the majority of the original number of corporators the corporation exists, and can exercise the powers conferred on it by its charter. Reliance lias also been placed on the case re-ported in Ananlamarayana Ayyar v. Kitttalam Pillai 22 M. 841 where it was decided that a quorum of three members fixed by a resolution of the committee can exercise the powers of the committee. This decision relates to a mere rule of procedure or the mode in which the committee, supposing it is constituted as required by the law, is to transact its business; but here the question is whether two members of a committee which originally consisted of three members--the least number required by the law--but the vacancy in which has not been filled, can validly exercise the powers of the committee. The two remaining members as I read Act XX of 1863 cannot be said to be the committee at all and the appointment by them of the plaintiff as the moktessor or trustee must, therefore, be held to be invalid. The suit has been rightly dismissed, and I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Alert