Supreme Court - Daily Orders
G.Shanmugam (D) By Lrs. vs Commr.Hr & Ce (Admn) Dept.. on 26 April, 2023
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3370-3371 OF 2012
G.SHANMUGAM (D) BY LRS. …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
COMMR.HR & CE (ADMN) DEPT. & ORS. …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are of the view that not much of dilation on factual aspects or legal contentions is requisite in these appeals for the reasons as indicated infra.
2. The dispute between the parties essentially relates to the office of Hereditary Trustee in relation to a trust known as Arulmigu Badrakaliamman Temple. As would appear from the facts- sheet, mother of the appellant(s) and respondent Nos.3 to 8 was earlier holding such office of Hereditary Trustee. However, mother of the parties was suspended as Hereditary Trustee in terms of Section 53(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (‘the Act of 1959’). Thereafter, mother of the parties as also respondent Nos.3 to 8 gave their letter of consent for appointment of the present appellant(s), being the eldest son, as Hereditary Trustee in her place. By an order dated 21.12.1992 as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by passed Jagdish Kumar Date: 2023.04.28 by the Deputy Commissioner in MP No.9 of 1992, the 16:32:21 IST Reason:
appellant(s) was recognised as Hereditary Trustee of the trust.1
Later, mother of the parties passed away on 03.04.1994.
3. In the course of time, disputes having ensued, the appellant(s) filed a suit bearing OS No.540 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Erode, against respondent Nos.3 to 8, seeking perpetual injunction against interference in his functioning as Hereditary Trustee. The suit was decreed on 07.12.2000. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.3 to 8 filed an application bearing RCMP No.26 of 2005 before the Joint Commissioner under Section 54(3) of the Act of 1959 seeking cancellation of the order dated 21.12.1992 passed in MP No.9 of 1992 and for decision on the dispute in relation to the right of succession to the office of Hereditary Trustee.
4. On 10.09.2007, the Joint Commissioner found no reason to cancel the aforesaid order dated 21.12.1992 and consequently dismissed RCMP No.26 of 2005. However, the Commissioner, by his order dated 03.04.2009 in appeal bearing AP No.53 of 2007, set aside the order so passed by the Joint Commissioner and remanded the matter for decision afresh as regards the question of succession to Hereditary Trusteeship.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 03.04.2009, the appellant(s) preferred a Writ Petition bearing No.9116 of 2009 before the High Court. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 14.05.2009. However, on 14.08.2009, the High Court vacated the interim order so passed in the writ petition whereupon, the appellant filed an intra Court appeal, being WA No.1447 of 2009. While dealing with the said intra Court appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, with the consent of the parties, dealt 2 with the main writ petition itself.
6. Having examined the matter in its totality, the High Court took the view that the consent letter given by the respondent Nos.3 to 8 could only be made applicable until the proceedings against the mother of the parties were pending and that after mother of the parties expired on 03.04.1994, the line of succession got opened and in that context, also observed that the earlier letters of consent given by respondent Nos.3 to 8 could not be asserted by the appellant to be binding on them. However, despite making such observations and dismissing the writ appeal as also the writ petition, the High Court left the entire matter open for consideration by the Joint Commissioner, who was to take the decision afresh without being influenced by the observations occurring in the order of the High Court. The High Court observed and directed as under: -
“Accordingly, the writ petition and the writ appeal are hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the second respondent shall consider all the issues raised by the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 8 on merits and in accordance with law and without being influenced by the order passed by us.”
7. In challenge to the order so passed by the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant(s) as also the respondent Nos.3 to 8 have attempted to put forward a variety of submissions as regards the competing claims but, we are clearly of the view that all such contentions ought to be advanced before the Joint Commissioner, who is to deal with RCMP No.26 of 2005 afresh pursuant to the order of the High Court; and there appears no reason for this Court to examine the competing claims of the parties in these appeals 3 arising from the writ proceedings.
8. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to observe, in continuity with what has been observed by the High Court in the passage extracted hereinabove, that all the respective submissions/contentions of the parties, including legal effect of the order dated 21.12.1992, shall remain open to be argued before the Joint Commissioner and the said Joint Commissioner would be expected to take a decision in the matter dispassionately and objectively, without being influenced by any observations made in the order passed by the High Court.
9. With the observations and requirements foregoing, these appeals stand disposed of.
10. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the Joint Commissioner on 29.05.2023.
...................J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI) ...................J. (J.B. PARDIWALA) New Delhi April 26, 2023 4 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.6 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).3370-3371/2012 G.SHANMUGAM (D) BY LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMR.HR & CE (ADMN) DEPT.. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 26-04-2023 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. Ram Lal Roy, Adv.
Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv.
Ms. Divya Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(GAGANDEEP SINGH CHADHA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file) 5