Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2193
2011 (2) MWN(Civil) 264
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH
P. Arumugham & Others
Versus
Sri Vinayagar & Sri Mariamman Koil, Rep. by its Trustee Govindaswamy & Others
Second Appeal Nos.269 to 271 of 1998
Decided On: 19-04-2011
For the Appellants:B.T. Seshadri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - V. Raghavachari, Advocate, R2 to R4 - Mrs. Shanthi Rakkappan, G.A.(CS).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for all trustees to join in filing a petition under Section 101 of the HR & CE Act and the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court to deal with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Headnote:
HR & CE Act - Property Dispute - Section 101 of HR & CE Act - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED: Section 101 of the Madras Act 22 of 1959] - The court discussed the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 101 of the HR & CE Act, emphasizing the requirement for all trustees to join in filing a petition and the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court to deal with the order. The court found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not legally valid due to the absence of all trustees in the application, but held that the District Munsif Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief and set aside the declaration granted by the trial court. The court dismissed the appeals, stating that no interference was necessary in the title and possession of the suit properties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the suit properties belonged to them and challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 101 of the HR & CE Act. The defendants claimed that the properties belonged to the Mariamman Temple and resisted the plaintiffs' claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not legally valid due to the absence of all trustees in the application, but held that the District Munsif Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief and set aside the declaration granted by the trial court. The court dismissed the appeals, stating that no interference was necessary in the title and possession of the suit properties.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 101 of the HR & CE Act, the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court to deal with the order, and the title and possession of the suit properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not legally valid due to the absence of all trustees in the application, but also found that the District Munsif Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief and set aside the declaration granted by the trial court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that no interference was necessary in the title and possession of the suit properties.
1. Second Appeal No.269 of 1998 has been preferred against the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.Nos.155 of 1995, whereby the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, dated 30.12.1994 in O.S.No.2212 of 1973 with regard to the declaration granted in M.P.No.19/70 were set aside and the order in M.P.No.19/70 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Sooramangalam, Salem, was confirmed.
2. Second Appeal No.270 of 1998 has been preferred against the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.Nos.81 of 1995, whereby the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, dated 30.12.1994 in O.S.No.1339 of 1985 were confirmed and the suit was dismissed.
3. Second Appeal No.271 of 1998 has been preferred against the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.No.82 of 1995, whereby the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, dated 30.12.1994 in O.S.No.2212 of 1973, were confirmed.
4. Since all the appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered in A.S.Nos.155, 81 and 82 of 1995, these appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment.
5. Firstly, we deal with S.A.Nos.269 and 271 of 1998. Appellants 1 and 2 in both the appeals are plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the respondents are the defendants. The short facts of the suit in O.S.No.2212 of 1973, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals, are as follows:
One B.V.Ponnusami, son of Velusamy Gounder had filed a suit in O.S.No.2212 of 1973 against the respondents in S.A.No.269 of 1998 for the following reliefs;
(1) to declare that the suit properties absolutely belonged to the plaintiff;
(2) to declare that the order of the 2nd defendant in M.P.No.19/1970 is not valid nor binding on the plaintiff;
(3) to restrain the defendants from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff by a permanent injunction by enforcing orders issued by the 2nd defendant;
stating that the suit properties consisting of three shops and one thatched residential shed belonged to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1955 and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit properties originally belonged to one Shanmuga Gounder and after his demise in 1951, his wife Kolandhai Ammal became the owner of the same and the patta also stood in her name and from her, the plaintiff purchased the suit properties in 1955. It is not correct to state that the suit properties were originally dedicated by one Nangavalli Govindaraju Chettiar in favour of the Mariamman Temple of Sooramangalam and they were not the trust properties and they were not dedicated to the said temple. While so, one of the trustees, by name, Kuppusami (who was removed from the trusteeship in 1976 and one Govindasami, the 1st defendant has been appointed in his place) approached the 2nd defendant, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), HR & CE Department, Coimbatore, under Section 101 of the Madras Act 22 of 1959 in M.P.No.19/1970 by filing a petition to issue a Certificate under section 101 of the said Act in his favour to take possession of the suit properties. Though the plaintiff made his objection, the Deputy Commissioner, the 2nd defendant passed an order in favour of the 1st defendant. Hence, the suit filed for the reliefs stated supra. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and his son Arumugam and his son-ion-law Periasamy were added as plaintiffs 2 and 3 and they continued the proceedings.
5. But the case of the plaintiffs was resisted by the 1st defendant by filing a written statement, stating that the eastern portion of S.No.10/3, where the suit properties are situated, originally belonged to one Venkatarama Chettiar and Mohammad Ghouse. The entire S.No
