Back
Madras High Court
M. ANANTANARAYANAN,NATESAN
Tirumalaisami Naicker - Appellant
Versus
Villagers of Kadambur, Athur Taluk, Represented by their Nattamailara Nellathambi Moopanar - Respondent
Decided On : 08/01/1967
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO PROPERTY - BAR OF SECTION 93 - SECTIONS 57, 62 AND 87 - NON-JOINDER OF TRUSTEES.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for declaration of title to property by villagers against tenant who set up title in a third party. The first defendant, one of the trustees of certain temples in the village, fraudulently obtained an order from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board to the effect that the suit property is a property of the temples. The second defendant, the District Board, Salem, attorned to the first defendant on 20-5-1957. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of the title of the villagers to the suit property and for an injunction against the first defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The suit is not barred by Section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as it is not a suit relating to the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act. The suit is not barred by Sections 57, 62 and 87 of the Act as the plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings before the H. R. and C. E. Board and the orders of the Board had been obtained behind his back without any reference to him. The plea of non-joinder of other trustees also fails as the suit is not against the first defendant in his capacity as trustee appointed by the Religious Endowments Board.
Issues: Whether the suit is barred by Section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951? Whether the suit is barred by Sections 57, 62 and 87 of the Act? Whether there is non-joinder of other trustees?
Ratio Decidendi: Section 93 of the Act bars only those suits for which provision has been made in the Act and it does not prohibit the institution of suits under the general law which do not fall under the scope of any of the sections of the Act. The power of the Deputy Commissioner to find whether a particular property belongs to a temple, it is said, is found in Section 57. Therefore it is argued that when a certificate is issued under Section 87, it involves a decision under Section 57 (c). But the first thing to be noticed is that the Deputy Commissioner in this case was not called upon to decide any dispute between the plaintiff and the institution. Section 62 provides for suits by any party that may be aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed on appeal made to him. An order under Section 57 (c) of the Act has not been made a decision in rem to bind persons not parties to the proceedings. Section 87 of the Act enables a person who has been appointed as trustee or Executive Officer of a religious institution or to discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution, when resisted in or prevented from obtaining possession of the property of a religious institution by a trustee, office-bearer or servant of the religious institution who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession or by any person claiming or deriving title from such trustee, office-bearer or servant, to secure possession by summary proceedings before specified alias of Magistrates. But the summary procedure cannot be availed of against a person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account or on account of third parties, that is, not on account of trustees, office-bearers and servants of the temple dismissed or suspended or otherwise not entitled to be in possession. Where a religious institution has plurality of trustees the institution cannot be represented unless all the trustees are made parties. If the temples are to be bound by this judgment, all the trustees are necessary parties. But the present suit is framed as against the first defendant restraining him from in any way objecting to the payment of rent by the second defendant Board to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
NATESAN, J. :- Two questions are raised in this Letters Patent Appeal from the decision of our learned brother, Kailasam, J. First it is contended that the suit not having been instituted in conformity with and as provided for under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act XIX of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, it is barred under Section 93 of the Act Next it is submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the other trustees of the religious institution in question.
2. The appellant before us is the first defendant in a suit filed by the villagers of Kadambur, Athur Taluk, Salem District, represented by their Nattamaikarar Nallathambi Moopanar, as the plaintiff, for a declaration that the suit building belonged to the villagers and the second defendant in the suit, the District Board, Salem, was their tenant. An injunction was prayed for restraining the first defendant in the suit the present appellant, from interfering with suit property. The first defendant is one of the trustees of certain temples in the village, and it is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant fraudulently obtained an order from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board to the effect that the suit property is a property of the temples. It is seen that on proceedings taken by the first defendant under Section 87 of the Act (Miscellaneous Petition No. 73 of 1957) for possession of the suit property, the second defendant who was in occupation of the property as a tenant of the plaintiff attorned to the first defendant on 20-5-1957. The second defendant subsequently on 20-12-1957 sent to the plaintiff a memo to the effect that the suit property had been included as temple property, and that the first defendant claimed to be entitled to receive the rents. This, according to the plaintiff, necessitated his filing the suit for a declaration of the title of the villagers to the suit property and for an injunction against the first defendant The plaintiff would state that the order obtained by the first defendant from the H. R. and C. E. Board was not binding on the plaintiff and it could be ignored by the villagers.
3. In its written statement the second defendant Board expressed its willingness to pay the rent to such person as the Court might declare to be entitled to receive the rent. Besides setting up a plea that though the suit building was built by the villagers it had been dedicated to the temples in the village and therefore it is a public religious institution, the first defendant strenuously contended that the suit should have been in conformity with Section 62 of the Act, filed in the Sub-Court, which alone had jurisdiction. A plea of non-joinder of the other trustees of the temple was raised and the written statement specifically set up the order under Section 87 of the Act as a bar to the suit as instituted.
4. The learned District Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, upheld the plaintiff's claim that the second defendant Board had entered on the possession of the suit property as tenant under the person who was then in management of the property as Nattamaikarar of the villagers and was continuing in possession of the properly. He found that there was no proof that at any point of time the temples enjoyed the suit property or appropriated the income from the suit property which was constructed from subscriptions collected from the villagers. For the first time in 1956 the H. R. and C. E. Board had passed orders treating the suit property as belonging to the village temples and appointing the first defendant and two other persons as trustees issued a certificate under Section 87 of the Act. It is seen from the record that for sometime previously the first defendant had been seeking to convince the second defendant not to pay the rent to the plaintiff in his capacity as Nattamaikarar of the village. The learned District Judge observes that th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
