Madras High Court
Dr.K.J.Renuka vs Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal ...
Author: V. Parthiban
Bench: V.Parthiban
Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020
in C.S.No.358 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22.07.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
Application Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020
in
C.S.No.358 of 2020
1. Dr.K.J.Renuka, W/o B.Saikumar
2. M.Srinivasan, S/o Late S.Mohana Krishan Chettiar
.. Applicants in both the applications
Vs.
1. Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
S.Manohar Chettiar,
Perumal Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
2. S.Manohar Chettiar, Son of T.Srinivasan,
Managing Trustee,
Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple,
Perumal Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015
.
3. A.Madhanagopal Chettiar,
Son of Late A.Adhi Chetty,
Trustee, Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple,
Page No.1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020
in C.S.No.358 of 2020
Perumal Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
4. D.Rajasekaran Chettiar,
Son of Late Deenadayalan,
Trustee, Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple,
Perumal Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
5. K.R.Prabhakar Chettiar,
Son of Late K.R.Ranganathan,
Trustee, Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple,
Perumal Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
6. E.P.Parthasarathy,
Son of Late E.Padmanabhan,
Trustee, Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple,
Perumal Koil Street,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
.. Respondents in both the applications
Judge's Summons issued under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side
Rules of this Court read with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) and Application No.3005 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, is filed
praying to appoint an Interim Administrator to take over and manage the
affairs of the first defendant-Temple, pending the framing of a Scheme in
the instant suit.
Page No.2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020
in C.S.No.358 of 2020
Judge's Summons issued under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side
Rules of this Court read with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) and Application No.3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, is filed
praying to frame an Interim Scheme for the better administration of the first
defendant-Temple, pending disposal of the instant suit.
For applicants : Mr.Vineet Subramani
For respondents : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar
ORDER
The applicants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in C.S.No.358 of 2020.
2. The said suit has been filed for the following reliefs:
(a) to frame a Scheme for the proper management and administration of the Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple, Saidapet, the first defendant herein, including but not limited to the mode and method of Page No.3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 election of Trustees to the management of the Temple;
(b) to remove the defendants 2 to 6 as Trustees of the first defendant and to direct the appointment of a Board of Trustees in consonance with the Scheme to be framed by this Court;
(c) to direct that the assets of the Temple shall vest with the said Board of Trustees to be managed in consonance with the Scheme framed by this Court;
(d) to direct an inquiry into the illegal sale of immovable properties of the first defendant by the second defendant, and to order the second defendant to make good the losses caused on account of such sales, and to take such other action as this Court deems fit, and
(e) to direct a forensic audit to be taken of the Bank Accounts of the first defendant and to direct the second and fifth defendants to make good the losses suffered by the Temple.
3. Application No.3005 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, is filed praying to appoint an Interim Administrator to take over and manage the affairs of the first defendant-Temple, pending the framing of a Scheme in Page No.4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 the instant suit.
4. Application No.3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, is filed praying to frame an Interim Scheme for the better administration of the first defendant-Temple, pending disposal of the instant suit.
5. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the present applications, are briefly stated hereunder:
(a) The first respondent/first defendant is a Perumal Temple managed by Balija Chetty Community people. According to the applicants/plaintiffs, the Temple has been in existence for over several centuries. Over the years, the people belonging to the Balija Chetty Community had made substantial donations of land, house, shops and money to the Temple deity.
(b) In 1988, one S.Govindarajalu Chetty and another instituted a suit in O.S.No.1134 of 1988 before VII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the Temple is a "denominational" in character and for a decree of injunction restraining the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (H.R. & C.E) Department from interfering with the affairs of Page No.5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 the Temple. The said suit in O.S.No.1134 of 1988 was decreed on 11.02.1991. The decree was also confirmed in the First Appeal in Appeal Suit No.325 of 1995, by judgment and decree dated 26.04.1994 by the III Additional City Civil Court, Madras.
(c) According to the applicants, in view of the decree granted by the Court below and more specifically, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 2005 (6) SCC 166 (R.Murali Vs. Kanyaka P.Devasthanam and Charities), the H.R. & C.E. Department is denuded of its jurisdiction to frame a Scheme under Section 64 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959. The only remedy that is open for the plaintiffs is to approach this Court under Section 92 CPC for framing a "Scheme" for the administration of the Trust and ancillary reliefs.
(d) The first respondent/first defendant-Temple does not have a Trust Deed, nor, does it have any Regulation framed, defining the role of a Trustee or the mode and manner in which the Trustee is to deal with the affairs of the Temple as well as its assets. In the absence of any Trust Deed, laying down any procedure for election of Trustees, and the Regulations in relation to the governing of the affairs of the Temple, the first respondent- Page No.6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 Temple had been administered without any kind of checks and balances. The power of the Managing Trustee or the other Trustees, how their function is to be governed, what is the tenure of their office, etc., have not been stipulated by any written document(s), due to which the Trustees or the Managing Trustee have become the power unto themselves, without any control over the action relating to the administration of the affairs of the Temple and its valuable Assets.
(e) According to the applicants/plaintiffs, the second respondent is the Managing Trustee of the Temple, but according to them, under what authority he calls himself as the "Managing Trustee", is not known. It is also the case of the applicants that the H.R. & C.E. Department earlier issued notice in 2001 calling upon the Temple to remit the audit fees and present its accounts for inspection. In response to the notice, the then Trustee of the Temple approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12533 of 2004 and obtained stay of the auction by the H.R. & C.E. Department. Subsequently, the said Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.06.2013. However thereafter, the said Writ Petition was restored and it was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 07.02.2017. Page No.7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020
(f) Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.2086 of 2014 was filed before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration that the first respondent-Temple is exempted from payment of audit fee and contribution fee by the present second respondent/Managing Trustee, apart from praying permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management and administration of the Temple.
(g) According to the applicants/plaintiffs, the said suit was a gross abuse of process of Court, as the earlier suit in O.S.No.1134 of 1998, which had attained finality, which was a suit laid under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, in which a decree was passed, in which it was made clear that the audit fee and contribution fee are payable to the H.R. & C.E. Department. Suppressing the above fact, interim direction was obtained in the abovesaid subsequent suit.
(h) Subsequently, a Devotee, namely A.V.Rajan, after coming to know of the fraud played by the second defendant herein (Managing Trustee of the Temple), had approached this Court in Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.1211 of 2019 for striking-off the plaint in O.S.No.2086 of 2014. This Court granted leave to the said Devotee and also stayed all Page No.8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 further proceedings in the suit, vide order dated 28.03.2019. The interim order of stay was also extended until further orders, by order dated 21.11.2019.
(i) According to the applicants/plaintiffs, the respondents-Trustees have been taking steps to illegally deal with the property(ies) belonging to the first respondent-Temple and also initiating measures for sale of some Temple properties to third parties. The first applicant has also approached this Court in W.P.No.7617 of 2020 seeking direction to the fourth respondent therein, namely the District Registrar, Chennai South, to hold enquiry into the illegal lease deeds executed by the fifth respondent therein (S.Manohar) of the lands belonging to the Temple on the basis of the letter in EN.3402/U2/2020, dated 05.02.2020 issued by the second respondent therein, namely The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, to the fourth respondent therein, namely, the District Registrar, Chennai South. This Court, by order dated 13.05.2020, recorded the submission of the H..R. & C.E. Department that the sale therein is made without obtaining any permission from the H.R. & C.E. Department. The submission of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 therein, namely Secretary to Government, Page No.9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, the Inspector General of Registration and the District Registrar, Chennai South, that the fourth respondent (District Registrar, Chennai South) shall not register any document before the completion of the enquiry to be conducted in respect of the lands belonging to the Temple, was also recorded. Thereafter, the District Registrar, Chennai (South) has clearly found that the sale was in contravention of Section 34 of the H.R. & C.E. Act and had annulled the sale.
(j) Thereafter, it appears that the H.R. & C.E. Department received several complaints from Devotees and conducted enquiry and found large scale financial irregularities and illegal sale of Temple land(s).
(k) It also appears that in July 2020, finding that there was a clear case of breach of trust by the H.R. & C.E. administration, a "fit person" was appointed on 02.07.2020 and the second respondent/Managing Trustee challenged the appointment of "fit person" in W.P.No.9087 of 2020. The first plaintiff herein has also filed an impleading petition, which was also allowed. Later, W.P.No.9087 of 2020 and W.P.No.7617 of 2020 (filed earlier) came to be disposed of by a common order dated 12.08.2020, in Page No.10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 which, this Court, while disposing of those two Writ Petitions, found that there were arrears of audit fee and contribution fee since 1988 and no proper accounts have been maintained from 1991 to 2015 and that the Temple has also failed to maintain statutory books of accounts. This Court has directed the second defendant/Managing Trustee to deposit Rs.10 lakhs as audit fee as a condition precedent for setting aside the impugned order therein, dated 02.07.2020. As against that, a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.758 of 2020 (relating to W.P.No.9087 of 2020) was filed and by judgment dated 25.09.2020, the First Division Bench of this Court had modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since the conduct of the Managing Trustee is not proper, the present applications have been filed for the reliefs stated supra.
6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the applicants/plaintiffs.
7. Be that as it may. As far as the administration of the affairs of the Page No.11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 first defendant-Temple is concerned, without any written documents or Regulations regulating the appointment of Trustees and Managing Trustees, the Temple has been loosely administered without any defined powers to be exercised by the persons in control at various points of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs have approached this Court as a matter of legal imperative for framing a Scheme to manage and govern the affairs of the Temple and its assets in terms of Section 92 of CPC.
8. In the meanwhile, the administration of the Temple needs to be continued for safeguarding the Assets of the Temple and for proper conduct of the affairs of the Temple, pending disposal of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, leaving the administration of the Temple with the present men at the helm, the Assets of the first respondent-first defendant/Temple, which had been accumulated over a period of time at the instance of several benefactors, philanthropists, etc. of the Balija Community, is likely to be squandered and frittered away, defeating the very object of the founding of the Temple by the Balija Chetty Community people.
Page No.12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020
9. When the present applications are taken up for hearing, in the back-drop of the above factual narrative, the learned counsel appearing for both the applicants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants agreed that an Interim Administrator may be appointed for day-to-day administration of the affairs of the first defendant-Temple and also the management of the property(ies)/Assets belonging to the Temple.
10. This Court, in consideration of the facts as set out above, is in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of both the learned counsels, in the interest of the over-all Temple administration, the first respondent-Temple is to be necessarily maintained by appointment of an Interim Administrator by this Court, pending framing of a Scheme by this Court in the suit under Section 92 CPC.
11. For the above said reasons, Application No.3005 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, is ordered as prayed for and the following directions are issued:
Page No.13/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020
(i) Mr.P.B.Ramanujam, Advocate (Mobile Number: 98402 47000, Landline No.044-28341050, Old No.31, New No.22, Bagirathi Ammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017, having office/chambers at Chamber No.19, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104), is hereby appointed as an Interim Administrator for the first defendant-Temple, namely Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple, Perumal Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
(ii) The Interim Administrator shall take charge of the management and administration of the Temple and its assets and property(ies) immediately.
(iii) The Interim Administrator shall be paid monthly remuneration of Rs1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the management of the affairs of the Temple for acting as such, from and out of the funds maintained by the Temple Administration.
(iv) The Interim Administrator is also at liberty to take the assistance of any professional or any person to assist him in carrying out the day-to-
day activities and duties in the management and administration of the affairs of the Temple and its assets and property(ies).
Page No.14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020
(v) The present Temple Administration is also directed to provide adequate office space for the Interim Administrator to be present in the office premises for over-seeing and managing the day-to-day affairs of the Temple and its connected activities.
(vi) It is also open to the Interim Administrator to approach this Court for any clarification, in case he requires to take any major decision in the day-to-day management of the Temple administration of the Temple, which includes the property(ies) and Assets of the first defendant-Temple.
(vii) The persons who are hitherto connected with the management and administration of the Temple, namely the present Managing Trustee and Trustees of the first defendant-Temple and all others concerned, are directed to extend utmost co-operation to the Interim Administrator for smooth administration of the affairs of the Temple, pending further order from this Court.
12. In view of the appointment of the Interim Administrator as above in A.No.3005 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, the application in A.No.3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020, filed for framing an Interim Scheme for Page No.15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 better administration of the first defendant-Temple, pending disposal of the suit, shall stand closed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs in both these applications.
22.07.2021 Speaking Order: Yes cs To
1. Mr.P.B.Ramanujam, Advocate, Interim Administrator, Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple, Perumal Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. (Mobile Number: 98402 47000, Landline No.044-28341050), Old No.31, New No.22, Bagirathi Ammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017, having office/chambers at Chamber No.19, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104),
2. Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple, Managing Trustee, Perumal Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
3. The Sub-Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. Page No.16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order dated 22.07.2021 in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 V. PARTHIBAN, J cs A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in C.S.No.358 of 2020 22.07.2021 Page No.17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/