THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR O.S.A.No.12 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

1.Meera Bai

2.Gnanasundari (died)

3.B.Rajalakshmi 4.Suresh Kumar

5.Manjula 6.Chandra

7.Viruthambal

8.E.Vatchala ...Appellants Vs.

1.Sri Kandasamy Temple and Sri Muthukumarasamy Devasthanam, Rep. by Balasubramaniam Managing Trustee, at Rasappa Chetty Street, Park Town, Chennai - 600 007.

2.G.D.Sivasankar

3.N.Rani

4.M.Vijayalakshmi

5.V.Jayalakshmi

6.Rajeswari ...Respondents (R6 brought on record as LRs of the deceased A2 i.e. (Gnanasundari) vide Order of Court dated 11.10.2023 made in CMP.212172, 12173, 12184 of 2023 in OSA.No.12 of 2015 (RSMJ & KGTJ)

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 made in O.P.No.651 of 2000.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Srikanth For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharanitharan for R1 R2 to R6 - No Appearance

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Challenge in this Original Side Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge made in O.P.No.651 of 2000 and Application No.1257 of 2014. The said Original Petition was filed purportedly under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act seeking permission to sell the property. The petitioners would claim that under a registered settlement deed dated 30.09.1935 executed by one Palaverkadu Rajagopala Chettiar, the property was settled on his grandson, T.K.Balasubramania Chettiar with a direction to pay the debts due to one Ramachandra Tarwadi and perform the Kathiri Utsavam annualy for Sri Kandasamy in Sri Muthukumarasamy Temple Devasthanam, Rasappa Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. Claiming that the property should be sold and at the same time undertaking to deposit the portion of the sale proceeds to any Nationalized Bank in order to perform to Kathiri Utsavam out of the interest that the deposit earns, the appellants sought for permission for sale of the property.

2.This was resisted by the Temple contending that the endowment being absolute, sale cannot be permitted. A plea was also taken that if at all the sale could be permitted that could be done only under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act by the Commissioner and not by this Court under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act.

3.The learned Single Judge held that the application under Section

34 is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant does not have any grievance with the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge. He is only aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge has chosen to examine the matter futher and conclude that the endowment said to have been created by the Palaverkadu Rajagopala Chettiar under the settlement deed dated 31.03.1935 is a specific endowment within the meaning of Section 6 (19) of theTamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959. This according to the learned counsel, is without jurisdiction and calls for interference at our hands.

4.Upon notice, Mr.R.Bharanitharan, learned counsel appears for the 1st respondent. Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would take us through the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,1959 in support of his submission. The learned counsel would submit that Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 provides for a complete machinery for determination of certain disputes, which includes the determination as to whether a particular endowment is a religious endowment or a specific endowment. Section 63 reads as follows:-

"63. Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters:- Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to inquire into and d