OSA.No.12 of 2015

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.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

OSA.No.12 of 2015

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

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

OSA.No.12 of 2015

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.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

OSA.No.12 of 2015

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 whethe