Madras High Court
A/M Neithro Tharakeswarar Thirukoil vs Kalibulla Ravuthar (Died) on 21 August, 2025
S.A. No.945 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
S.A. No. 945 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.19651 of 2022
A/m Neithro Tharakeswarar Thirukoil, Panayapuram,
Rep. by its Administrative Officer,
Thiru.Gunasekaran. ... Plaintiff/ Appellant/ Appellant
Vs.
1. Kalibulla Ravuthar (Died)
2. Gnanvel Pillai (Died)
3. Ramu Naidu (Died)
4. Kamalamoorthy
5. T.Dhandapani Achari
6. C.Senthil ... Defendants/ Respondents/
Respondents 1 to 6
7. K.Shahul Hameed
8. R.Malarvizhi
9. R.Chandran
10. R.Jayaganesh
11. R.Jayabharathi ... Respondents 7 to 11
(R-7 brought on record as LR of the
deceased first respondent and R-8 to R-11
were brought on record as LRs of the
deceased third respondent vide Court
Order dated 18.10.2022 made in C.M.P.
Nos.11698, 11701, 11703, 11718, 11724,
11725 of 2022 and in C.M.P.No.4335 of
2019 in S.A.SR.No.24316 of 2017)
12. G.Venkatesan
13. G.Sankar
1/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm )
S.A. No.945 of 2022
14. G.Santhosh
15. G.Subramani ... Respondents 12 to 15
(R-12 to R-15 brought on record as LRs of
the deceased second respondent vide
Court Order dated 11.08.2023 made in
C.M.P. Nos.17503 & 17504 of 2023 in S.A.
No.945 of 2022)
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2016 made in A.S. No.28 of 2016 on
the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and
Decree made in O.S.No.530 of 1999 dated 30.03.2004 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif, Villupuram.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
For R-1 to R-3 : Died
For R-4 : Mr.M.Ramesh
For R-5 : Mr.R.Agilesh
for Mr.T.Dhanasekaran
For R-6 : No Appearance
For R-7 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for M/s.V.Pavithra
For R-8 to R-11 : Mr.D.S.Thirumavalavan
For R-12 to R-15 : Mr.N.Baskaran
******
2/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm )
S.A. No.945 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent findings of both Courts, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the Trustee of the suit property and for consequential relief of possession of the same.
2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:
2.1. The plaintiff is the temple, represented by its Administrative Officer.
The case of the plaintiff is that, the suit properties originally belong to one Kuppusamy Achari and he along with his son Annamalai Achari had dedicated the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff temple by way of Declaration of Trust deed on 19.04.1924 and endowed the property to conduct Aruthra festival during the Tamil month of Margazhi in the said temple every year continuously, out of the income generated from the said properties. It is also stated in the Declaration Deed that the property shall be only with the possession of the executor's family and no other persons are entitled to the said properties. The male descendants of the executor's family have to maintain the property and if they had failed to perform the Margazhi Aruthra festival, the temple Authorities can perform the 3/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 same, out of the income generated from the suit properties and shall maintain the accounts.
2.2. The suit properties were inherited by the first defendant/Thangavel and he took possession of the same as a trustee in the year 1995 and from thereon, he had failed to conduct the said Margazhi Aruthra Festival. Thereby, he had failed to fulfill the purpose of the endowment and failed to act as per the Declaration Deed dated 19.04.1924. Therefore, the first defendant should hand over the possession of the suit properties to the trustees of the temple. The Executive Officer of the Temple demanded the first defendant to hand over the properties and also to pay the income earned from the suit properties for the purpose of conducting Margazhi Aruthra Festival and the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits at Rs.5,500/- per year. The first defendant failed to hand over the suit properties and on the other hand, sold the same to the defendants 2 to 6. Hence, the plaintiff temple had issued a legal notice dated 30.07.1998 to the first defendant. After receiving notice, no reply was sent. Thereby, the plaintiff has come forward to file the suit seeking relief, stating that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 to 6 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff temple.
4/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
3. The first defendant filed a written statement and it was adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, in which they claimed that, as per the Declaration of Trust Deed dated 19.04.1924, the family of the executors shall retain and enjoy the suit properties and only from the income generated from the suit properties, they shall perform the said Margazhi Aruthra Festival every year. There is no prohibition for alienation of suit properties. Since the first defendant was unable to get any income from the suit properties, he decided to sell the properties and deposit a particular sum in a Nationalized Bank, so that the said Margazhi Aruthra Festival can be conducted, out of the interest generated from the deposit, without any lapse, in future also. They also denied that they have not conducted the Margazhi Aruthra Festival from the year 1995 onwards. The first defendant's son, namely, Dhandapani is acting against the interest of the first defendant, hence, on his instigation, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek or claim any right over the suit property.
4. Based on the pleadings made on both sides, the Trial Court had framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of possession as prayed for?5/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits under Order.20, Rule 12 of CPC as prayed for?
4. To what other reliefs?”
5. After framing of issues, based on the evidence placed on record, the Trial Court had rejected the claim of the plaintiff, seeking to declare the plaintiff temple as a trustee of the suit property and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff temple had preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this Second Appeal. This Court admitted the appeal with following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Courts below erred in interpreting the terms of the trust deed dated 19.04.1924 as having barred the plaintiff from filing a suit for possession of the suit properties which is an ancillary prayer to the main prayer of declaration?
2. Whether the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit moreso when admittedly the suit properties have been alienated and the conduct of the festival of Arthura in the plaintiff temple has not been performed?6/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Section 6(17) and 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as HR & CE Act), deals with creation of endowment and if the endowment is created, then in the absence of compliance of the endowment, the Trustees or the Executive Officer of a religious institution is entitled to take possession of the property endowed. He further submitted that, admittedly, the first defendant in the suit is a legal heir of the executors, who failed to continue specific endowment. Hence, as per the Deed of Declaration, the plaintiff/appellant herein is entitled to take possession of the endowed property. These aspects have not been properly considered by both the Courts below. The first defendant has not only failed to perform specific object, but also sold the property in favour of other defendants by violating the intention of the executors of the Deed of Declaration and this is sufficient to grant decree as prayed for by the plaintiff.
8. The learned counsel for the purchaser/defendant no.3 submitted that the real intention of the executors is that they created a Kattalai i.e., Specific Endowment, to perform the Aruthra festival during the Tamil month of Margazhi on the day of Thiruvadhirai Natchathiram once in every year. He also submitted 7/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 that in Ex.A1, the executors had categorically stated that the trustees shall not take possession of the property but they can only utilize the income from the property for the purpose of the conducting the said festival. This shows that the income from the property shall be utilized for the purpose of conducting the festival in the temple and it is not necessary that the property itself to be transferred or possession to be handed over in favour of the temple. He further submitted that the plaintiff had come forward with the suit only on the ground that the persons, who are holding the suit property, is not conducting the said festival, whereas, the legal heirs of the executors of Ex.A1 are continuously performing the specific endowment and thereafter, they have come forward to alienate the property with the condition that as per specific endowment, conducting Aruthra Festival shall not be disturbed. Even now, these defendants are conducting the Aruthra Festival and since the specific endowment, i.e., Kattalai, is being performed without any interference, there is no need for granting any relief as claimed by the plaintiff, hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/son of the first defendant submitted that they have alienated the property and now it is in the hands of the defendant no.3 and since there is violation of non-performing the Aruthra Festival, the property shall be handed over to the temple and they support 8/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 the case of the plaintiff.
10. I have considered the submissions made on either sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. The scope of interfering with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below under Section 100 of CPC is well settled and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal [AIR 2006 SC 2234] has reiterated the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Lower Courts and has held in paragraph Nos.12 to 16 as follows:
“12. We shall first deal with the question relating to jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Reference was made by learned counsel for the appellant to Chandra Bhan v. Pamma Bai and Anr. (2002 (9) SCC 565) Sakhahari Parwatrao Karahale and Anr. v. Bhimashankar Parwatrao Karahale (2002 (9) SCC 608). So far as the first decision is concerned, in view of the factual findings recorded by the lower Court and the first Appellate Court it was held that interference with the concurrent findings of fact are not justified. The question related to possession and two Courts primarily considering factual position had decided the question of possession. In that background, this Court observed that jurisdiction under section 100 CPC should not have been exercised. So far as the second decision is concerned, the position was almost similar and it was held that findings contrary to concurrent findings of lower Courts and having no basis either in pleadings, issues framed or in questions actually adjudicated upon by any of the lower Courts cannot be sustained. That decision also does not help the appellant in any manner as the factual scenario is totally different in the present case.9/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
13. Though as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant the scope for interference with concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is very limited, and re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible where the trial Court and/or the first Appellate Court misdirected themselves in appreciating the question of law or placed the onus on the wrong party certainly there is a scope for interference under Section 100 CPC after formulating a substantial question of law.
14. As was noted in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (dead) by Lrs.
v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (dead) and Ors. (2002 (6) SCC 404) if the judgments of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court are based on mis-interpretation of the documentary evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence or on a finding of fact has ignored admissions or concession made by witnesses or parties, the High Court can interfere in appeal.
15. In Neelakantan and Ors. v. Mallika Begum (2002 (2) SCC
440) it was held that findings of fact recorded must be set aside where the finding has no basis in any legal evidence on record or is based on a misreading of evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity which materially prejudices the case of one of the parties. (See: Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and Another v. Pratima Maity and others [(2004) 9 SCC 468]).
16. It is now well settled that an inference of fact from a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms or a term of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of a principle of law, is a question of law. Therefore, when there is a misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law while interpreting a document, it is open to interference under Section 100 CPC. If a document creating an easement by grant is construed as an 'easement of necessity' thereby materially affecting the decision in the case, certainly it gives rise to a substantial question of law."
12. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court elaborately 10/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 considered the issues framed by them. The major grievance raised by the plaintiff for seeking the relief prayed in the suit is based on the violation of the performance of Aruthra festival, specific endowment as per Ex.A1-Deed of Declaration of Trust. The plaintiff pleaded and adduced evidence to support their case that from the year 1995 onwards, the first defendant failed to perform the endowment. This allegation has been denied by the defendants. However, it is admitted that the property dedicated for the specific endowment has been sold by the first defendant in favour of the other defendants. However, both the Courts have not considered the point that whether the sale creates any right in favour of the temple to claim declaration that the temple Board is to be appointed as trustee of the property and for possession of the property. The Trial Court by constructing Ex.A1 held that the temple is not entitled to get possession of the property, but it entitled to seek contribution for performing the Aruthra festival. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the Trial Court and held that the intention of the executor of Ex.A1 is not creating any trusteeship in favour of the temple over the suit property and the temple can only demand for performance of specific endowment.
13. This Court has to consider where there is any misconstruction of a document or wrong application of principle of law while interpreting Ex.A1 and it 11/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 is permissible for this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
14. Admittedly, one Kuppusamy Achari along with his son Annamalai Achari had executed a deed, titled as 'Deed of Declaration of Trust' dated 19.04.1924. For better understanding, the recitals in the document is captioned hereunder:
“1924 k; Mz;L Vg;uy; khjk; 19e; Njjp tpOg;Guk; jhYf;fh gidaGuk; fpuhkj;jpypUf;Fk; = NejNuhjcwhu <];tud; Nfhapy; rhkpf;F Nkw;gb gidaGuj;jpypUf;Fk; rPDthr Mrhhp FkhuH fk;khsH gapH Fg;Grhkp Mrhhp> i\ahH FkhuH mz;zhkiy Mrhhp Mfpa ehq;fs; vOjp itj;j bf;NsNu\d; Mg; bu];l; vdg;gl;l jh;k ghpghyd gj;jpuk;. vd;dntd;why;
ehq;fs; tpOg;Guk; jhYf;fh gidaGuk; fpuhkk;
=NejNuhjNcwuh <];tud; Nfhapy; gpujp tU\k; khh;fop khjj;jpy; jpUthjpiu el;rj;jpuj;jpy; ehq;fs; khKyha; elj;jp tUfpw MUj;uh jhprd cw;rt jh;kj;jpw;fhf tpl;bUf;fpNwhk;. Nkw;gb nrhj;Jf;fspy; tUk; tUk;gbiaj; nfhz;L Nkw;gb cw;rtj;ij gpujptU\Kk; elj;jp tuNtz;banjd;W vq;fs; mgpg;gpuhakhdjhy; Nkw;gb nrhj;Jf;fis Nkw;gb jh;kj;jpw;F ghpghyfu;fshf ehq;fSk; vq;fs; thhpRfSk; khNd[;nkz;L nra;J te;J Nkw;gb epyq;fspypUe;J jPh;it Nghf fpilf;ff;$ba tUk;gbiaf; nfhz;L Nkw;gb cw;rtj;ij rhptu ehq;fs; ,Uf;Fk; tiuapy; ehq;fs; elj;jp tUfpNwhk;. vq;fs; FLk;gj;jpy; thhpRfs; ,Uf;fpwtiuapy; Nkw;gb nrhj;Jf;fis mth;fs; RthjPdj;jpy; itj;Jf;nfhz;L Nkw;gb jh;kj;ij elj;jp tu vq;fs; FLk;gj;jhu;f;fy;yhky; NtW xUtUf;Fk;
ghj;jpakpy;iy. ve;jf;fhyj;jpyhtJ vq;fs; FLk;gj;jpy;12/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 thhpRfs; ,y;yhky; NghFk; gl;rj;jpYk; my;yJ ehq;fs; rhptu Nkw;gb jh;kj;ij elj;jhky; jg;gpg; Ngha;tpl;lhYk; mg;NghJ Nfhapy; jh;kfh;j;jhf;fs; mbapw;fz;l nrhj;Jf;fis RthjPdk; nra;J nfhs;shky; mjd; tUk;gbia kl;by; jhq;fs; ju;kj;ij rhptu fzf;F KjypaJ itj;J elj;jp tu Ntz;baJ vd;W fz;Ls;sJ."
15. Ex.A1 starts with recital stating that the executors are executing this document in favour of the Temple deity, i.e., Sri Nadha Neithro Tharakeswarar Thirukoil. According to the executors, they were conducting Aruthra festival during the Tamil month of Margazhi on the day of Thiruvadhirai Natchathiram once in every year and for the purpose of conducting this urchavam by the executors and their legal heirs, the income from the suit properties, which were endowed, shall be utilized. They also declared that they would do the said urchavam till their lifetime. Subsequently, their legal heirs will take possession of the endowed properties and continue the same. If there are no legal heirs at any point of time or if they could not be able to continue the urchavam, the Temple Trustees are entitled to perform the same by collecting the income earned from the suit properties, without taking possession of the same and by maintaining proper accounts, in this regard. Though, the executors have executed this document -
Ex.A1, stating that the temple deity as one of the party, they are very certain that the property shall not be possessed by the Temple Trustees, even in the absence of 13/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 any of the legal heirs or if any default in conducting urchavam by the family members of the executors.
16. The intention of the executors, who executed the Deed of Declaration, shows that they had not empowered the Trustees of the Temple to take possession of the properties. However, it mandates that the legal heirs of the executors shall conduct the Aruthra urchavam from the income generated from the properties endowed. If there are no legal heirs or if the legal heirs of the executors failed to do so, the temple shall ensure the performance of the Arurthra urchavam out of the income earned from the property. Ex.A1 reads that their intention is to conduct the Aruthra urchavam by utilizing the income generated from the property is absolute and dedication of property cannot be termed as partial. Nowhere the trustees are permitted to use the income for private purposes.
17. This Court agrees with the contention of the defendants/purchasers of the property that the executors have expressed their intention that after creation of the endowment, the property need not be vested with the temple. However, their intention is that the specific endowment shall be continued permanently without any default.
14/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
18. Now for the purpose of deciding the power of temple while dealing with specific endowment concerning the temple, it is relevant to consider the provisions of HR and CE Act including the meaning of endowment and specific endowment and some of previous judgments relating to the same. Section 6(17) of the HR and CE Act deals with 'religious endowment' or 'endowment' and Section 6(19) deals with 'specific endowment', which reads as follows:
“(17)"religious endowment" or "endowment" means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof; but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution;
Explanation 1. - Any inam granted to an archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service-holder or employee, but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment. Explanation 2. - All property which belonged to, or was given or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or which was given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity shall be deemed to be a "religious endowment" or "endowment" within the 15/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 meaning of this definition, notwithstanding that, before or after the date of the commencement of this Act, the religious institution has ceased to exist or ceased to be used as a place of religious worship or instruction or the service or charity has ceased to be performed:
Provided that this Explanation shall not be deemed to apply in respect of any property which vested in any person before the 30th September 1951, by the operation of the law of limitation; ...
(19)"specific endowment" means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple, or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation 1 to clause (17).
Explanation 1. - Two or more endowments of the nature specified in this clause, the administration of which is vested in a common trustee, or which are managed under a common scheme settled or deemed to have been settled under this Act shall be construed as a single specific endowment for the purposes of this Act.
Explanation 2. - Where a specific endowment attached to a math or temple is situated partly within the State and partly outside the State, control shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Act over the part of the specific endowment situated within the State;”
19. The Division Bench of this Court in Manikka Vachaka Desika Gyana 16/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. A. Vaithilinga Mudaliar, AIR 1924 Mad 168, has considered the meaning of the term “Kattalai” - specific endowment and in paragraph 7, it has been observed as follows:
“7. ...These trusts are somewhat analogous to temple services inams. Just as the latter are different from inam properties belonging to a temple, being granted to office holders on condition of rendering services in a temple and do not belong to the idol, though the idol may be interested in the rendering of the services, similarly the incomes of the Katlais do not belong to the idol, though the idol is interested in the proper performance of the distinct duties attached to each Katlai.”
20. In Sri-la-Sri Subramana Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannadhi v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 1578, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the validity of exercise of power under Section 64(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and considered the nature of various Kattalais of Thiyagarajasamy Temple Trustees and observed as follows:
“2. In the town of Tiruvarur in Thanjavur Dist. there is an ancient temple. The Presiding Deity is Sri Thyagarajaswami. A distinguishing feature of this temple is that apart from an allowance called the “Mohini allowance”, there is no other property which can be treated as devoted for its general 17/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 maintenance. A large number of specific endowments called “Kattalais” with specific reference to special services in the temple, its festivities and several charities in glorification of the principal deity, have however been made in respect of this temple. It is said that there are 13 such Kattalais, the important amongst them being Rajan Kattalai, Ulthurai Kattalai, Abisheka Kattalai and Annadanam Kattalai. In respect of these Kattalais, large endowments have been made. According to the appellant, these endowments were made by the Indian Rulers who ruled Thanjavur before the establishment of the British Rule. It appears that the management of each one of these Kattalais is vested in a certain Trustee or Trustees hereditarily. The trusteeship of Rajan Kattalai vests in the head of the Dharmapuram mutt in the Thanjavur district. The Dharmapuram mutt itself has large endowments of lands in Thanjavur and Tirunelveli districts. The head of this mutt is known as Pandarasannadhi and under his management there are about 27 temples. Having regard to the nature of the duties of the head of a mutt of this importance and magnitude, it is not possible for the Pandarasannadhi to supervise all the temples personally, and so, Deputies are appointed on his behalf to supervise and look after the management of the various institutions. With regard to the services connected with the Rajan Kattalai in Sri Thyagarajaswami temple at Thiruvarur, the head of Dharmapuram mutt generally functions through a deputy known as Kattalai Thambiran.18/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
3. Ordinarily, a Kattalai is a specific endowment in respect of which it would be competent for the founder to prescribe the line of trustees for its management, and so, the property endowed for the performance of the Kattalai in question cannot be held to be transferred in trust to the trustee vesting the legal estate therein in him; such legal estate would vest in the deity itself. Thus, the position of the Kattalai trustee would normally be no more than that of a manager of a Hindu Religious Endowment. It, however, appears that Kattalais which are attached to Sri Thyagarajaswami temple at Thiruvarur have been treated as constituting a slightly different category by the Madras High Court in Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v.
Somasundara Mudaliar [(1894) ILR 17 Mad 199] but with that aspect of the matter, we are not concerned in the present appeal. In practice, a scheme appears to have been evolved that in regard to the various services in the temple in respect of which Kattalais had been endowed, the management of the allotted properties vested in separate trustees and in that sense, all the trustees administering separate Kattalais could be said to constitute a kind of corporation in which the management of the temple properties vested, each one of its members being in charge of particular items of properties the proceeds of which would be utilised for the performance of a specific Kattalai.”
21. In Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v. Duddukuru Subba Rao, AIR 1957 SC 797, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principles of Hindu law 19/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 applicable to the consideration of questions of dedication of property to charity and observed as follows:
“5. The principles of Hindu law applicable to the consideration of questions of dedication of property to charity are well settled. Dedication to charity need not necessarily be by instrument or grant. It can be established by cogent and satisfactory evidence of conduct of the parties and user of the property which show the extinction of the private secular character of the property and its complete dedication to charity. On the other hand, in many cases Courts have to deal with grants or gifts showing dedication of property to charity. Now it is clear that dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to, and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character. Whether or not dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document. In such cases it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties; it is obvious that such intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. The use of the word “trust” or “trustee” is no doubt of some help in determining such intention; but the mere use of such words cannot be treated as decisive of the matter. Is the private title over the property intended to be 20/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 completely extinguished? Is the title in regard to the property intended to be completely transferred to the charity? The answer to these questions can be found not by concentrating on the significance of the use of the word “trustee” or “trust” alone but by gathering the true intent of the document considered as a whole. In some cases where documents purport to dedicate property in favour of public charity, provision is made for the maintenance of the worshipper who may be a member of the family of the original owner of the property himself and in such cases the question often arises whether the provision for the maintenance of the manager or the worshipper from the income of the property indicates an intention that the property should retain its original character and should merely be burdened with an obligation in favour of the charity. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication. It is naturally difficult to lay down a general rule for the solution of the problem. Each case must be considered on its facts and the intention of the parties must be determined on reading the document as a whole.” 21/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
22. In K.Subramaniam Chettiar v. Poovalur Thirumoolanathaswami Sayarakshai, 1965 (1) MLJ 354, this Court has considered the relationship between specific endowment/Kattalai, Temple and its trustees and held as follows:
“It seems to me that the view of the learned District Judge as to the effect of the statutory provisions in respect of the powers of a general trustee of a temple vis-a-vis the powers of the trustee of a specific endowment cannot be accepted. The learned District Judge referred to the definition in the Act of a “temple,” “religious institution” and a “specific endowment”, and thought that a specific endowment or kattalai was an independent institution within a bigger institution, namely, the temple, and to the extent to which the specific trustee functions in performance of a kattalai, to that extent the powers and jurisdiction of the general trustee will stand excluded in respect of the main institution itself. It may be conceded that a specific endowment is certainly a religious institution and in that sense an independent entity. It is also true that a specific endowment as an institution is in a sense one within a bigger institution, namely, a temple. But, from these premises, it does not follow that the specific endowment in any way affects or limits the powers of the general trustee over the temple and the performance of the objects of the specific endowments in the temple. It may be that the general trustee may have no control, in the absence of specific statutory provisions or a decree or scheme, over the actual administration 22/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 by the specific kattalaidars of the kattalai properties. But, because the performance of the kattalai is in the temple on particular occasions, it does not mean that ipso facto the jurisdiction of the general trustee over the temple on those occasions is excluded. To illustrate, supposing there is a kattalai for performance of a neivedyam on the occasion of a particular nakshatram or star, neivedyam being performed before the deity in the temple. Can it be said that when neivedyam is offered to the deity in the temple the performance is entirely to be controlled by the kattalai trustee, without the general trustee having any right in respect of the temple on the occasion? I think not. Likewise, supposing the kattalai is for deeparadana on certain occasions in the sanctum sanctorum or inside the temple. On that account, the kattalai trustee cannot assume that., during the time the service is done he has control over the entire temple, and the powers of the general trustee over the temple are confined to the rest of the period. In such cases, the kattalai is but intended for performance of a ceremony or ritual or service in or in connection with the temple and does not normally affect or exclude in any way the jurisdiction of the general trustee over the temple, its properties and management during all periods. Experience shows that seldom a kattalai trustee by virtue of his position ousts a general trustee of the temple and gets or exercises jurisdiction over the temple itself. The statutory provisions in the various enactments made from time to time do not make any change in this position. In my opinion, there is no basis for the wrong assumption made 23/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 by the District Judge that a kattalai being a separate or independent institution, the kattalai trustee, when the objects of the kattalai are performed takes the place of the general trustee, thereby suspending the latter's jurisdiction as it were to administer and manage the temple at the time.”
23. In Meera Bai v. Sri Kandaswamy Temple and Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam, 2014 (4) CTC 785, this Court has once again considered the scope of Section 34 of Indian Trust Act vis-a-vis various provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act concerned with specific endowments/Kattalai has held in paragraphs 16, 17 and 23 as follows:
“16. In the Judgment reported in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v. Duddukudru Subbu Rao, AIR 1957 SC 797, cited supra, it is held as follows:
“Dedication of property to religious or charitable purpose may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public Religious Charity is created. If the dedication is partial a trust in favour of charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character. Whether or not dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document. In such cases, it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties, it is obvious that such intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. The use of the word “Trust” or “Trustee” is no doubt of some help in determining such intention; but 24/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 the mere use of such words cannot be treated as decisive of the matter. The answer to the questions whether the private title over the property was intended to be completely extinguished or whether the title in regard to the property was intended to be completely transferred to the charity can be found not by concentrating on the significance of the use of the word “Trustee” or “Trust” alone but by gathering the true intent of the document considered as whole.” Having regard to the recitals in the document, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no complete dedication and the party was only burdened with obligation to perform charities in question.
17. In the Judgment reported in Vagesa Mudaliar (Dead) v.
Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar, 2002 (4) LW 370 (DB), cited supra, following the Judgment reported in Menakuru Dasaratharami v. Duddukuru Subba Rao, AIR 1957 SC 797, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the Manager, the dedication was complete, and on the other hand, a minor portion of the income was dedicated to be used for the purpose of any charity and substantial surplus was left in the hands of Manager for the private purposes, there was no question of complete dedication, it is held that there was complete dedication.
24. In paragraph 23 of the above judgment, the principles summarised by the Division Bench in Duraikannu Vs. Natesa Pillai, 1978 (1) MLJ 296, are 25/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 incorporated and held as follows:
''The Division Bench of this Court considering the above Judgment summarised the legal position as follows:
“The legal position that emerges is that to ascertain whether the dedication is partial or absolute, we have to take the instrument as a whole. The intention of the author of the document has to be gathered and that has to be done only from the words used. Where, as here, the document speaks only of the income, the intention has to be ascertained from the disposal of the income. If for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income is required to be used and substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager for his own private purposes, there would not be a complete dedication. But if the charity is given a substantial part of the income, then, the dedication would be a complete one. The document before us does not contemplate any surplus being left in the hands of the person in charge of the properties. The purpose contemplated is that the charity is to be done in accordance with the status of the family. The expenditure is thus bound to be elastic, so that when the income increases, the obligation to pay for the charity also expands. It is not as if any specific amount alone was contemplated to be spent so as to leave a balance. Further, there are no words of disposal with reference to the balance, if any, of the income from the said properties. It is, therefore, manifest that the reservation for these purpose was absolute and not partial.” ''
25. In this case in hand, as observed in the earlier paragraphs, the dedication 26/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 of the endowed property for the purpose of performing Aruthra festival is absolute and complete, Ex.A1 does not contemplate any surplus income being left in the hands of the person in charge of the properties. The purpose contemplated is to be done after paying the necessary tax.
26. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting defendants submits that there is no prohibition in the trust deed prohibiting the transfer of property and temple always have a 'charge' over the property for performance of endowment. This Court is of the view that, it is true that there is no prohibition of transfer of property. But total declaration of the property as a Trust property is very clear and unambiguous. Since there is total dedication of property by creating Trust. The executor might not have anticipated the alienation of the property by their descendants. In the written statement, the defendants have specifically stated that since there is no income generated from the property, they had come forward to sell the suit properties so as to generate income. The defendants further pleaded that sale proceeds were deposited in Bank and they will perform the object of Trust by using this amount. It is further pleaded that the temple can only have charge over the endowed property and they are not entitled to take possession of the same as long as the performance of the endowment/Kattalai continues. In this case, the defendants are continuing the performance of Aruthra festival and hence, 27/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 there is no need for appointing the temple trustees as trustees of the endowment herein. He further added that the property was transferred by the first defendant in favour of the other contesting defendants only for ensuring that the performance is to be conducted as per the terms of Ex.A1. Hence, both the Courts have rightly held that the temple is not entitled for taking possession and the transfer of the property in favour of some of the defendants is not invalid.
27. This Court is unable to accept the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel in view of the implications of Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which reads as follows:
“34.Alienation of immovable trust property.-
(1)Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purposes, of any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution:
Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly considered by the Commissioner:
Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord 28/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 such sanction without the previous approval of the Government.
Explanation. - Any lease of the property above mentioned though for a term not exceeding five years shall, if it contains a provision for renewal for a further term (so as to exceed five years in the aggregate), whether subject to any condition or not, be deemed to be a lease for a period exceeding five years.
(2)When according such sanction, the Commissioner may impose such conditions and give such directions as he may deem necessary regarding the utilisation of the amount raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage, regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period.
(3)A copy of the order made by the Commissioner under this section shall be communicated to the Government and to the trustee and shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4)The trustee may, within three months from the date of his receipt of a copy of the order, and any person having interest may, within three months from the date of the publication of the order, appeal to the Court to modify the order or set it aside.
(4-A) The Government may issue such directions to the Commissioner as in their opinion are necessary, in respect of any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution and the Commissioner shall give effect to all such directions.
(5)Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the inams referred to in section 41.” 29/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 As per Section 34, if there is any violation of the said provision, then the transfer is to be considered as null and void. In the present case, the relief claimed by the Trust Board is that the temple Board shall be appointed as a trustee of the property since there is an alienation by the legal heirs of the executors of the declaration of trust deed. Even if there is no prohibition stated in the document Ex.A1, the moment, the property is in the nature of specific endowment, then Section 34 comes into operation and no person is entitled to sell away the property without the consent of the Commissioner. In this case, there is a clear violation of Section 34 and the first defendant, who inherited the property, is not entitled to sell the endowed property. Further, the conduct of the first defendant, is against the intention of the executors, who dedicated the property as Trust. The defendants, who purchased the property, are not entitled for any protection that their possession of the property need not be disturbed and they will continue to perform the Aruthra festival.
28. Both the Courts have failed to consider the scope of Section 34 and the intention of the testator, to continue the Aruthra festival only by the male descendants of the family members of the executors, as trustees of endowment and in their absence, the temple authorities are entitled to collect income from the property and they can perform the Aruthra festival. Though there is a specific 30/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 recital that the temple need not take possession of the property, but it recites that temple trustees are entitled to collect the income from the property.
29. Since the first defendant, as a trustee of the endowment, has violated Section 34 of the Act, he could not continue as a trustee of the endowment and his action is clear violation of the statutory provision, which protects the objects of the specific endowment. Once the specific endowment is connected with the performance of the religious act in the bigger institution, namely, the temple, on failure of performance and also alienation of endowed property warrants the interference of the temple to seek themselves to be appointed as a trustee of the property for ensuring the performance of the specific endowment/Kattalai. The Trust deed itself empowers the temple trustees to collect income from the property. The nature of the property endowed is agricultural land and the extent of the property is 1 acre 11 cents in S.Nos.369/2, 370/2 and 371/4 of the Panayapuram Village, Vikravandi SRO, Villupuram District. Without taking possession of the property for the purpose of generating income, the trustees of the temple cannot perform the objects of the specific endowment. Though the arguments were advanced by the defendants based on the recital in Ex.A1 that the temple trustees need not take possession of the property, the executors had not foreseen the situation where the trustees of the specific endowment, i.e., the first defendant, had come forward to sell the property, which is dedicated for the 31/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 purpose of specific endowment.
30. The plaintiff/temple authorities herein have not sought that the property shall be handed over to the temple so as to treat the property as a temple property. Their relief is very proper to the extent that they only sought for appointment of the temple trustees as trustees of specific endowment/Kattalai. Consequently, they seek for possession of the property. This relief claimed shall not be construed that the temple is seeking the property for the purpose of treating it as a temple property. The proper construction would be that the temple trustees wanted to become the trustees of the specific endowment and if they are appointed as trustees, the consequences would be that they shall be vested with the powers to deal with the properties dedicated for specific endowment. That being so, this Court finds that the relief claimed by the temple authorities is proper and the argument that the temple can only seek charge over the property is not a proper.
31. Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act bars the powers of the Civil Court in respect of administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for deciding which provision is made in this Act. It reads as follows:
“108. Bar of suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions, etc.—No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a 32/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.”
32. Section 63 and 64 of the Act empowers the authorities for passing various orders including removing any existing trustee or appointing in that trustees and also for defining the powers and duties of trustees and it reads as follows:
“64. Power of Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to settle schemes.—(1) When the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, has reason to believe that in the interest of the proper administration of an institution, a scheme should be settled for the institution, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application, in writing, stating that in the interest of the proper administration of an institution a scheme should be settled for it, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons having interest and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall, by order, settle a scheme of administration for the institution.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “institution” means a temple or a specific endowment attached to a temple.
(2) A Scheme settled under sub-section (1) for an institution may contain provision for –
(a) removing any existing trustee, whether hereditary or non-
hereditary :
Provided that where provision is made in the scheme for the removal of a hereditary trustee, provision shall also be made therein for the appointment as trustee of the person next in succession who is qualified;
(b) appointing a new trustee or trustees in the place of, or in addition to, any existing trustee or trustees ;33/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022
(c) defining the powers and duties of the trustee or trustees :
Provided that in making any provision of the nature specified in clause (b) due regard shall be had to the claims of persons belonging to the religious denomination for whose benefit the institution is chiefly intended or maintained.” Section 63 of the HR and CE Act 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 beshall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:-
(a)whether an institution is religious institution;
(b)whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee;
(c)whether any property or money is a religious endowment;(d)whether any property or money is a specific endowment;
(e)whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;
(f)whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character; and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses; and
(g)where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character, or the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious uses.”
33. The principle on which the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded 34/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 under Section 108 of the Act are now well-settled. If the dispute raised in the suit relates to the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for the determination of which a provision has been made in the Act the bar under Section 108 of the Act will be attracted. On the other hand if the question arising for adjudication falls outside the scope and ambit of Section 108 of the Act, then the civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the bar of exclusion of jurisdiction provided for under Section 108 cannot be invoked.
34. It is equally settled that if in a suit any matter in respect of which a provision is made under the Act had to be incidentally decided, the jurisdiction of the civil Court will not be excluded. To be more specific if any other question, in respect of which the power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to decide under Section 63 of the Act, arises incidentally for consideration in a suit, the jurisdiction of the civil Court will not be excluded. Notwithstanding Section 108 of the Act, where the dispute relating to a temple is only between two private parties and the Board is not directly concerned, the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
35.The authorities are empowered under Sections 63 and 64 to take corrective actions to safeguard the interest of the specific endowment by appointing new trustee in the place of any existing trustee or trustees. The above 35/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 sections also empower the authorities to go into the disputes relating to the properties and also removal of trustees etc. Under the said circumstances, since the relief claimed in the suit is for appointment of trustee for the specific endowment and also consequential prayer of handing over possession to the trustees to be appointed, I am of the view that the issue involved in this suit shall be decided in favour of the plaintiff, however, only by the authorities concerned. The Scheme of the Act mandates that the authorities shall decide the issue before parties approaching Civil Court in view of specific bar contained in Section 108 of HR and CE Act. These points were not separately dealt by both the Courts below. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
36. The relief claimed in the suit shall be decided by the authorities contemplated under the Act. While exercising powers by the authorities, they are entitled to take note of the observations and findings rendered in this appeal for the purpose of deciding the issue of appointing new trustees for proper administration of the specific endowment and also for ordering possession. It is admitted by the purchasers of the property that they are in possession based on the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant and since the same is executed in violation of Section 34 of the HR and CE Act, their possession could not be considered as lawful and they shall be considered as encroachers. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are directed to approach the authorities for seeking appointment of the trustees of the 36/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 endowed property and also for possession of the property. Before passing any orders, the authorities shall also hear the respondents herein and conduct proper enquiry as contemplated under the Scheme of the Act.
37. As far as the substantial question of law No.1 is concerned, the main relief claimed by the temple is for declaration of the temple board as the trustees of the specific endowment on the ground that the trustees of specific endowment have acted against the interest and objects of the endowment and consequently, seek for possession. Since the specific endowment is connected with the performance of the religious act of the temple (i.e., bigger institution), on failure of performance, a person interested in performance can remedy the situation seeking performance of the specific endowment. The temple authorities have not come forward for enforcement of specific endowment. If they sought for specific endowment and consequently, seek for possession, in such event finding of Courts below, by interpreting Ex.A1, that the temple authorities are not entitled to take possession of the endowed property, is proper, whereas, in this case, as stated in the earlier paragraphs, the temple management has not sought for enforcement but they wanted to become as trustees of the specific endowment, so as to administer the endowment. Once the temple management able to become trustees of specific endowment, consequently they entitled for possession of endowed 37/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 property. Hence, the finding rendered that the temple authorities are not entitled for taking possession is not legally valid.
37.1. Similarly, as far as the substantial question of law No.2 is concerned, both the Courts have held that though the endowed property has been sold, the trustees of the endowment are continuing the performance and the same is sufficient to condone the sale of the endowed property, is also against the Scheme of the Act. Since Section 34 of the HR and CE Act specifically bars the sale of the endowed property without the approval of the Commissioner, HR and CE Department and if the sale is without the approval or permission, the sale is void. Thereby, both the Courts have committed error in condoning the action of sale by the trustees of the specific endowment. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are hereby answered.
38. In the result, the Second Appeal stands disposed off, with liberty to the plaintiff/appellant to approach the authorities for the relief of appointing trustee and for the recovery of possession of the endowed property. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.08.2025 stn/Lm Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No 38/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm ) S.A. No.945 of 2022 K. RAJASEKAR, J.
stn/Lm To:
1. The Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram.
2. The Additional District Munsif, Villupuram.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.S.A. No.945 of 2022
21.08.2025 39/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:44:50 pm )