Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sri Bakthositha Perumal Temple And Ors. vs B. D. V. Rangarathinam (D) Through Lrs. ... on 8 January, 2019
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.1899/2008
SRI BAKTHOSITHA PERUMAL TEMPLE AND ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
B. D. V. RANGARATHINAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Plaintiffs – appellants filed a Suit O.S. No.170 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Sholinghur to direct to deliver possession of trust properties to the plaintiffs/beneficiaries in pursuance to the Judgment in O.S. No.44/1912 on the file of Sub Court, North Arcot District at Chittoor. Certain other reliefs were also sought for. After contest, the Suit was decreed in the Trial Court.
2. The appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendants Nos.3, 4, 9, 21 and 22 in O.S. No.106/1986 on the file of District Court, Vellore was transferred and renumbered as Tr. Appeal No.11 of 1993 before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Learned Single Judge confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. As against the same, unsuccessful defendants approached the Division bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in L.P.A. No.24 of 2000 came to be allowed on 632004 and consequently suit is Signature Not Verified dismissed. Said Judgment is questioned in this appeal. Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2019.01.11 15:52:19 IST Reason:
3. Plaintiffs case is that the Suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Velliagaram Alwar Chettiar son of 2 Muniappa Chattiar. Muniappa Chattiar, during his life time, arranged daily supply of flowers to the temples. His son Velliagaram Alwar Chettiar with the desire to perpetuate this charity of supply of flowers to the deities in the plaintiffs temple and for arranging daily distribution of cooked rice to Desanthiries and indigent persons, by executing a Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 1911898 created specific endowment for these objects. The Trusties nominated by the author of the trust did not cooperate. However, Alwar Chettiar himself carried on Trust as before as contemplated in the Deed of Declaration. It seems the trust deed was cancelled subsequently for want of cooperation by the nominated trustees.
4. To obviate any obscurity in such a context, three persons/beneficiaries of the trust instituted O.S. No.44 of 1912 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chittor for declaration and validity of trust and for framing a scheme for its administration, after formally removing the former trustees appointed by the Trust Deed. The said suit was decreed as prayed. It seems draft scheme was published on or about 771913 but it is not known as to whether it was finalized or not.
5. Be that as it may, consequent upon changing times, views and outlook of the people on the efficiency and propriety of charities, the objective purpose of the trust seemed to have suffered a change in the hands of those who took upon themselves. In the meanwhile, certain properties were also stated to have been sold by the 3 defendants to third parties. Most of the defendants are stated to be in possession of the trust properties in bits, which according to the plaintiffs is unlawful. In view of the same, the Suit O.S. No.106/1986 came to be filed as mentioned supra. The Division Bench, as mentioned supra, set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court who had decreed the suit, solely on the ground that the suit is not maintainable since it is hit by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter on merits was not dealt with by the Division Bench.
6. Having heard Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we find that the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court relating to maintainability of the suit is incorrect and, therefore, liable to be set aside, in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.
7. Section 5 reads thus: Certain Acts not to apply to Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. The following enactments shall cease to apply to Hindu religious institutions and endowments, namely:
(a) The Tamil Nadu Endowments and Escheats Regulation 1817 (Tamil Nadu Regulation VII of 1817)
(b) The Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (Central Act XX of 1863)
(c) The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (Central Act VI of 1890)
(d) The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (Central Act 4 XIV of 1920) and
(e) Section 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) (Emphasis Supplied)
8. A bare reading of Section 5 (e) of the Act makes it amply clear that Section 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will not apply to Hindu religious institutions and endowments. There cannot be any dispute that the institution in question is a Hindu religious institution and endowment, having regard to the duties discharged by it and having regard to the intentions of the propounder of the Trust. The temples were established for the performance of puja. Mr. Ramamoorthy, learned Senior counsel brings to the notice of the Court that daily rituals such as pooja, alankara etc. are being performed to deities and the same is not denied by the other side.
9. Be that as it may, since the matter has to be sent back to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the matter on merits, we do not wish to comment anything further on the merits of the case. It is for the parties to argue on merits before the Division Bench of the High Court since the said Bench has not considered the matter on merits.
10. It is needless to say that the suit in question is maintainable in law and the appeal has to be dealt with on merits by the Division Bench of the High Court.
5
11. Accordingly, the following order is made:
(i) Judgment dated 632004 of the Division Bench of the High Court stands set aside;
(ii) L.P.A. No.24 of 2000 is restored to the file of Division Bench of the High Court which will be heard on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court during the course of this order.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
.......................J (N.V. RAMANA) ........................J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;
8TH JANUARY, 2019.
6
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1899/2008
SRI BAKTHOSITHA PERUMAL TEMPLE AND ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
B. D. V. RANGARATHINAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 08012019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Sri Ram J.Thalapathy, Adv. Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv.
Mr. Pushkin Rajkumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Christ Das, Adv.
Mr. S. Rajasekaran, Adv. Mr. S. Pilani, Adv.
Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the file)