Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 1213
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
The Managing Trustee, Nagore Dargah, Nagore
Versus
S. Sana Syed Sahib, Advisory Board Member of Nagore Dargah & Another
C.R.P. Nos. 1897 & 2113 of 1998
Decided On :Decided on : 09-09-1998
For the Petitioner:P.A. Rasheed, T.P. Sankaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R2 - S. Parthasarathi, Advocate.
A Managing Trustee is bound by the directions of the District Court and cannot challenge its own action.
Headnote:
NAGORE DARGAH TRUST - LEASE OF PROPERTY - SCHEME DECREE - VALIDITY - VOID LEASE - MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION PETITION - CIVIL CONSEQUENCES - NATURAL JUSTICE - DISQUALIFICATION OF MANAGING TRUSTEE - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The Nagore Dargah Trust, a public trust, sought permission from the District Court to alienate a property to a lessee. The District Court refused permission, and the Trust filed a revision petition. The lessee also filed a revision petition against the same order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision petition filed by the Trust was not maintainable because the Managing Trustee was bound by the directions of the District Court and could not challenge its own action. The court also held that the revision petition filed by the lessee was maintainable because the impugned order affected his civil rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petition filed by the Trust was maintainable? 2. Whether the revision petition filed by the lessee was maintainable? 3. Whether the lease deed executed by the Managing Trustee was valid? 4. Whether the Managing Trustee was entitled to continue as such?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revision petition filed by the Trust was not maintainable because the Managing Trustee was bound by the directions of the District Court and could not challenge its own action. 2. The court held that the revision petition filed by the lessee was maintainable because the impugned order affected his civil rights. 3. The court held that the lease deed executed by the Managing Trustee was void because he had no authority to execute such document. 4. The court held that the Managing Trustee was not entitled to continue as such because he had abused his position.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the revision petitions. In CRP No. 1897 of 1998, the Managing Trustee was personally made liable for the costs. The court also directed the District Court to consider whether the Managing Trustee was entitled to continue as such.
1. These revisions are filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, whereby he refused permission to Nagore Dargah, a Public Trust, from alienating a property to 2nd respondent in CRP No. 1897 of 1998.2nd respondent therein has filed the other revision against the same order.
2. Before coming to the facts of this case, the historical background of the Trust is required. O.S. No. 30 of 1946 was instituted under Section 92, C.P.C. for framing a Scheme for acquisition of Nagore Dargah and its attendant institutions. Nagore Dargah is considered to be one of the most famous religious places of the Muslim community in South India, and it is one of the most wealthiest Trusts also. A detailed Scheme was prepared by the District Court, East Tanjore, and finally two appeals were taken as A.S. Nos. 289 and 576 of 1948. A Division Bench of this Court passed a decree and framed a Scheme. On the basis of the Scheme, the entire administration is vested in Board of Trustees which is also having an Advisory Board. This Court, while drafting the Scheme, has also provided that if any other Trustees or Kasupanguthars or any member of the Advisory Board filed any application to the Court for a direction, the Court shall have full power to give all such directions as may be necessary to effectuate and carry out the Scheme. The scheme also provided that the District Court of East Tanjore at Nagapattinam, and if there is no District Court at Nagapattinam, the Principal Court exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 92, C.P.C. over the Nagore Dargah shall be the Court for the purpose of the Scheme. As I said earlier, the day-to-day administration of the Dargha was vested in a Board of Trustees. A resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees on 24.7.1997 to lease out Dargah Thottams in T.S. Nos. 2373 and 2376 at Public Office Road, Nagore to the Educational Trust of Nagore for the purpose of putting up construction and starting Arts and Engineering Colleges on permanent lease basis on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-, which will be raised every year, and the transaction was decided to be entered into after getting legal opinion and also after obtaining necessary sanction and approval from the Scheme Court. When such a resolution was passed, 1st respondent in CRP 1897 of 1998 moved an Application before the District Court, Nagapattinam, on 29.4.1998, alleging that the proposed lease is a collusive transaction and the same is detrimental to the Trust. On getting such complaint, the Scheme Court issued notice to the Managing Trustee to produce one copy of the permanent lease deed for taking necessary action. Even before that, the Scheme Court has declined to grant permission to the Managing Trustee for executing any such lease. The said order was passed on 2.9.1997, and it reads thus:—
“The request for permanent leasing is rejected, since there is no provision in the Scheme Decree for granting permission to such lease or to lease the property by negotiation without conducting any public auction”.
In spite of this order (extracted above), the Managing Trustee seems to have executed a lease ‘ deed which is the subject matter of the complaint by the 1st respondent, and it was pursuant to the said complaint, the Court wanted the document to be produced. After the document was produced, the lower Court passed the impugned order and thereby declared that the document executed was null and void and that it is a collusive transaction, and if possession had passed to the lessee, it must be surrendered back or the property must be taken possession of, and the so called lessee will not have any right as against the Dargah. The lower Court further directed that if the so called lessee, is in any way prejudiced or suffered any loss, only the Managing Trustee will be made personally liable, and the Trust and Trust properties will not be affected in any way. It is this order that is challenged in b
