A non-party can appeal with leave from a decree or order, and findings and observations against a non-party in the original order cannot bind or prejudice them.

Headnote:
Suspension - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, S.80 - Grave irregularities in disposal of land and timber belonging to Devaswom - Malafides charge - Commissioner's duty of superintendence over endowments - Appeal allowed by leave - Additional evidence in appeal - Findings and observations against appellant not binding
Fact of the Case:

The appeal and petitions arose from the dismissal of a petition by the Manager of Pulpalli Devaswom, challenging his suspension and the appointment of another in his place. The main ground was the alleged malafides behind the suspension and the improper disposal of valuable forest lands and timber belonging to the Devaswom.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the charge of malafides was not true, but observed grave irregularities in the disposal of land and timber. The court allowed the appeal by leave and declared that the findings and observations against the appellant in the original order cannot bind him and should not prejudice him in any proceeding.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged malafides behind the suspension, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the appellant's right to appeal as a non-party to the original petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that a person who is not a party to the decree or order may, with leave, prefer an appeal from such decree or order. It also emphasized that findings and observations against a non-party in the original order cannot bind or prejudice them.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed by leave, and the court declared that the findings and observations against the appellant in the original order cannot bind him and should not prejudice him in any proceeding.

Judgment :-

1. The appeal and the petitions arise from the order of Raman Nayar, J. dated the 12th February, 1963, dismissing O.P.No. 2306/62. That was a petition by one Madhavan Nair, Manager of Pulpalli Devaswom, for quashing an order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, placing him under suspension and appointing another in his place. The first respondent to the petition was the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Kerala. The appellant in the appeal who is also the petitioner in the two petitions was the Commissioner at the time of passing the order of suspension and he continued as such only till 19101962. The main ground urged in the original petition was that the order of suspension was actuated by malafides. According to the petitioner in the original petition, the appellant was directing the disposal of valuable forest lands and timber belonging to the Devaswom to his nominees, in violation of law; the petitioner did not agree to some of his proposals and was thus "a stumbling block in his way" and this was the real reason for the order of suspension. Raman Nayar, J. held that the charge of malafides was not true inasmuch as the petitioner in the original petition never stood in the way of the Commissioner in the matter of disposal of the land and timber. The other ground, namely, that the order was passed without jurisdiction, was also found against and the original petition was dismissed. However in considering the charge of malafides, Raman Nayar, J. observed that there were grave irregularities in the matter of disposal of the land and timber belonging to the Devaswom and that it was improper for the Commissioner who was to exercise a general power of superintendence over the acts of the Trustees to have initiated certain proposals for the grant of land and timber and to have acted in the manner referred to in the order. The learned judge observed:

"I am, however, tempted to observe that reasons however compelling, and administrative decisions, however high the level at which they are taken cannot alter the law, or the fact that the 1st respondent Commissioner, who is by law charged with the duty of seeing that endowments coming within the scope of the Act are properly administered and that the trustees do their duties faithfully and properly, has been taking an undue interest in the disposal of very valuable properties belonging to the Devaswom in favour of particular persons leading, literally, to the charge of nepotism, and that he has been directing disposal otherwise than in accordance with the law."

(pp. 26-27, para 17)

Although it was stated in the order that the court was not directly concerned with the conduct of the first respondent in the original petition, it was also observed that the case

"has served to expose a disquieting state of affairs regarding the disposal of valuable forest lands belonging to a religious institution known as the Sree Pulpally Devaswom of which, I trust due notice will be taken by the competent authority in the interests of the public administration and preservation of our forest wealth no less than in the interests of this particular institution."

This is the order which has given rise to the appeal before us. C. M. P. No. 2264 of 1963 is a petition for leave to appeal from the order and C. M. P. No. 3852 of 1963 is for converting the appeal into a petition if the appeal is found to be not maintainable.

2. When C.M.P.No.2264 of 1963 came before a Bench notice was ordered to the Advocate General who appeared and rendered great assistance to us in deciding the matter. Notice was ordered to the respondents in the petition, but except the Government Pleader who appeared for the Commissioner and the petitioner in the Original Petition, the others did not choose to appear.

3. The first question for consideration is whether leave to appeal should be granted. It is admitted that the appellant was not eo nomine a party to the original petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document