SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
Sri Vedaranyaswamy Devasthanam rep. by its Managing Trustee K.Sevanthinatha Pandarasannithi - Appellants
Vs.
The Commissioner, HR & CE Dept., Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - Respondent
A.S.No.285 of 2003
Decided On : 21-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s.G.Sumithra
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader (for H.R. & C.E., Department)

The main legal point established in the judgment is the Deputy Commissioner's power to modify the scheme under Section 64(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Suit filed by hereditary trustee to set aside order appointing non-hereditary trustees - Act 22 of 1959 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to modify the scheme under Section 64(5)(a) of the Act, the validity of the impugned order for non-service of notice, and the justification for appointing non-hereditary trustees. The court relied on T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar Vs. Commissioner, H.R.C.E and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 643 and Common Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Madras Vs. Smt.P.S.Sethurathinam, 1999 (1) SCR 332 to interpret the legal provisions and influence its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed by the hereditary trustee of a temple to set aside the order appointing non-hereditary trustees. The Trial Court found that the impugned proceedings were not a variation of the scheme framed by the High Court and dismissed the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court found that the impugned proceedings were not a variation of the scheme framed by the High Court and dismissed the suit.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the impugned order, the maintainability of the suit, and the reliefs the plaintiffs were entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deputy Commissioner had the power to modify the scheme, the impugned order was valid, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any reliefs.

Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 07.11.2002 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in O.S.No.1 of 1983, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiffs to set aside and to cancel the order of the first defendant, dated 29.07.1982 in A.P.No.63 of 1981, thereby, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Thanjavur in O.A.No.71 of 1972, dated 22.12.1980 and for costs of the suit.

B. The Plaint :

2. The first plaintiff namely, Sri-la-Sri S.Kadirkama Pandara Sannathi, by virtue of his status and position as the Hereditary Managing Trustee of Arulmighu Vedaranyeswaraswamy Thiruvkkovil at Vedaranyam, originally, the second plaintiff, as the head of the Varani Adheenam, along with his eldest son, being the third plaintiff, have filed the above suit under Section 70 of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959) with the above prayer. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., is arrayed as the first defendant, while the eligible and competent male descendants of the Sage-Ancestor called Sri-la-Sri Thillainayaga Thambiran of Varani in Jafna district of Sri Lanka, constituting to what is called as Varani Adheenam, are arrayed as defendants 2 to 24 in the suit. The said Varani Adheenam at Varani, in the district of Jafna in Sri Lanka, is a religious order consisting of the male descendants either through sons or daughters, natural born or adopted of the Sage-Ancestor called Thillainayaga Thambiran Swamigal of Varani. The said Adheenam is a matam by itself and the trusteeship, the administration of the properties and the conduct of the functions and festivals in the temple namely, Sri Vedaranyaswamy Devasthanam at Vedaranyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the temple') are vested absolutely in the said Varani Adheenam from time immemorial. The said Varani Adheenam has a very long, ancient, and historical tradition and has a glorious past. The temple is also a very ancient, celebrated and a renowned one, sung in hymns by Nalwars and other Tamil Saints and Sages. The said Thillainayaga Thambiran Swamigal, who was the sole Hereditary Managing Trustee, purchased 300 velis of wet land in the village of Kunnalur in Tiruturaipundi Taluk and dedicated the same to the temple. They also acquired the Thirappu lands, which are now held by the temple. The said Thillainayaga Thambiran Swamigal also undertook vast and extensive Thiruppani by using rock-cut stones. The inscriptions in respect thereof are found in the temple. The management of the said temple and its associated temples which were vested entirely in the said Varani Adheenam is now governed by a Court scheme framed in O.S.No.6 of 1993, on the file of the Temporary Sub Court, Thanjavur and confirmed with some modifications by the judgment and decree of this Court in A.S.Nos.121 and 122 of 2019. While so, after The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 was enacted, a departmental scheme was introduced, in which, there was a provision to appoint non-hereditary trustees which was framed on 07.07.1957. However, the said provision remained a dead letter without being put into use. In any event, it was inoperative and void. The second departmental scheme was framed on 06.04.1963 in O.S.No.60 of 1960. The said departmental scheme had since been superseded by the third departmental scheme made in O.A.No.71 of 1972 dated 22.12.1980. The appeal filed in A.P.No.63 of 1981 was dismissed by order dated 29.07.1982. The said original order is not a speaking order and hence an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the first defendant.

3. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that no notice was taken out at any stage of the proceedings initiated under Section 64 of the Act and the interested persons were treated as third parties. Therefore, in the absence of service of proper notice to all or any member of Varani Adheenam or Varani Adheenam itself, the proceedings are null

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top