Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Tamilvanan, J.
E. Srinivasaraghavan
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai and Others
A.S. No. 327 of 1997
Decided On : 17th April, 2008

Advocates Appeared:
S. Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for A. S. Narasimhan, for Appellant
T. Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader and R. Murugesan, Government Advocate for H.R. & C.E. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 V. Rangarajan for Respondent No. 3 V. T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for K. V. Ananthakrushnan for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 S. Balasubramanian for Respondent No. 6

Trivial dispute over Satari honour can not accepted as violation of religious right.

Headnote:A. THE HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ACT 1959, SECTION 70 - for filing statutory suit under the section, notice under S. 80 CPC is not necessary - Suit filed by the appellant for certain reliefs against the Board-suit dismissed as beyond the statutory period of 90 days as required under section 70 of the Act - plea Section 80 CPC notice was taken hence delay, rejected, suit dismissed - reaffirming the same HELD that when a special enactment prescribes the period of limitation then that Act alone will govern the period.
       B. THE HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ACT 1959 - SECTION 69(1) - SUO MOTO REVISION - The Commissioner has suo moto power to revise the order of the joint-commissioner after due notice to parties and the limitation set out under 69(1) for appeals, not applicable (Paras 31 & 32).
       C. THE HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ACT 1959 - CUSTOM & USAGE. SECTION 63(e) - The joint or Deputy Commissioner has the power to decide about the honour, emoluments or perquisites to be conferred on persons on the basis of custom or other wise in any religious institution. (Para 29 & 44).
       Ed note. The court made certain observations about the perennial trivial disputes between the two sects of Vaishnavaits that affects the smooth functioning of reputed ancient Temple(s). The court lamented that the in spite of both the sects having accept the primacy of important texts including the Divya Prabandhams and the supremacy of the Lord, raise trivial disputes, in the instant case conferring of satari honour to Sri Manavalamamuni Swamy. The court quotes one example of the absurd extent disputes between the two sects have gone, up to the Apex court, on the trivial issue, the type of tirumankapu a temple elephant should sport. The dispute ironically got resolved by the court directing that the elephant sport thiruman of each sect, on alternate days (never mind the pain & trauma the animal was put through). However by divine intervention the poor elephant soon reached the lotus feet of the lord, to escape it’s predicament or pain. The dispute apparently was resolved (for the time being?) by the temple purchasing two elephants, each sporting different sect’s thiruman. It is strongly felt that in future when such litigations arises, the court should invoke the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) (Madras Act VIII of 1949) Act, 1949 against the suitor and give wide publicity so that it may act as a deterrent against frivolous litigations.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S. TAMILVANAN, J.

This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.2.1997 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 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (herein after referred to as Act), seeking a decree to set aside the order, dated 9.8.1991 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 Satari honours to Sri Manavala Mamunigal Alwar Prakaram of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kancheepuram, on the third day of Brahrnotsavam, 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 4.6.1990 and 9.8.1991, 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 4.6.1990 and 9.8.1991 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, 3 and 4 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 9.8.1991 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 9.8.1991 and the appellant herein received the copy of the same on 16.8.1991. As per Section 70 of the Act, the suit should have been filed within 90 days from 16.8.1991, the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the appellant. However, the suit was filed before the Civil Court only on 14.1.1992, 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 and for the reply of the other sid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. Tamilvanan, J.E. SrinivasaraghavanVersusCommissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai and OthersA.S. No. 327 of 1997Decided On : 17th April, 2008

Trivial dispute over Satari honour can not accepted as violation of religious right.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Tamilvanan, J.
E. Srinivasaraghavan
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai and Others
A.S. No. 327 of 1997
Decided On : 17th April, 2008