Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
E. Srinivasaraghavan
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai & Others
AS. No.327 of 1997
Decided on 7-04-2008
SUIT BARRED BY LIMITATION - HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS - Section 70 of the Act - 69(2) of the H.R. & C.E. Act - 63(e) of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act seeking to set aside an order and declare the absence of a custom to confer honors to Sri Manavala Mamunigal. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit, and the appellant appealed, arguing that the Suit was not barred by limitation and that the order was beyond the scope of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after 150 days from the receipt of the impugned order, exceeding the 90-day limit specified in Section 70 of the Act. The Court also held that the order was within the scope of the Act and that the appellant's grievance had no legal basis.
Issues: The main issues were the limitation of the Suit and the scope of the impugned order. The Court also considered the necessity of a pre-suit notice and the correctness of the court fee paid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Suit was time-barred under Section 70 of the Act and that the impugned order was within the Commissioner's power under 69(2) of the Act. The Court also found that the appellant's grievance had no legal basis and dismissed the Suit as vexatious.
Final Decision: The Court confirmed the Trial Court's judgment, dismissing the Suit with costs.
1. This Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12. 1997 made in O.S. No.106 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram.
2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the Suit before the Trial Court. The Suit was filed under Section 70 of the (Tamil Nadu) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (herein after referred to as Act), seeking a decree to set aside the order, dated 8. 1991 of the first respondent made in S.M.R. No.8/91 and to declare that there is no custom and usage to confer Sri Saari honours to Sri Manavala Mamunigal in Alwar Prakaram of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kancheepuram, on the third day of Brahmotsavam, during the Tamil month of Vaikasi from time immemorial.
3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Trial Court held that the appellant herein is not entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly, the Suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by which, this Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the Suit. According to the appellant, there is merger of the order, dated 6. 1990 and 8. 1991, as per the evidence available on record and that the Trial Court has not considered the same on merits.
4. It is seen that the Trial Court has framed 5 main issues and 2 additional issues.
The main issues are:
1. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation ?
2. Whether the Suit is maintainable ?
3. Whether the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
4. Whether the Court Fee paid is correct ?
5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?
The additional issues are:
1. Whether the contention that the sum and substance of the orders, dated 04.06.1990 and 09.08.1991 are one and same and the contention that the two orders have, merged is sustainable in law ?
2. Whether the contention of the plaintiff that there was no custom or usage of Satari honour to Sri Manavala Mamuni on the 3rd day and similar honour to the Idol at Sri Ahobila Mutt on the 5th day of Bramhotsavam is true ?
5. It is seen that the Trial Court has answered the Issues No.2 and 3 in favour of the appellant and found that the Suit filed under Section 70 of the Act is maintainable and the same was also not bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Court fee paid was found to be correct, as per the relevant provisions of law. However, the other issues and additional issues were decided by the Court below against the appellant herein and accordingly, the Suit was dismissed with costs.
6. The points for determination in this Appeal are as follows:
1. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation as held by the Court below ?
2. Whether the Trial Court should have held that the order, dated 09.08.1991 passed by the first respondent is beyond the scope of Section 69(2) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, as contended by the appellant and as such liable to be set aside ?
7. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. A.S. Narasimhan for the appellant contended that the Suit was not barred by limitation. It is seen that the Court below has held that there is no need for any pre-suit notice to be sent under Section 80, C.P.C., before filing the Suit. As the Suit was filed after 150 days, the Trial Court has held that the Suit is barred by limitation, as per Section 70 of the Act.
8. Admittedly, the first respondent had passed the impugned order on 9.08.1991 and the appellant herein received the copy of the same on 16.08.1991. As per Section 70 of the Act, the Suit should have been filed within 90 days from 16.08.1991, the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the appellant. However, the Suit was filed before the Civil Court only on 14.01.1992, after a lapse of 150 days and hence, as per the findings of the Court below, the Suit was barred by limitation.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after receipt of the order passed by the first respondent, notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was issued
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
