Madras High Court
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 November, 2021
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2243 of 2021
and CMP No.17048 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.2243 of 2021
and CMP No.17048 of 2021
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar
Managing Hereditary Trustee
Arulmugu Agastheeswarar Temple
and Allied Temples,
Pozhichalur, Chennai 74. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Secretary to Government,
Tamil Development & Religious Endowment,
Information Development, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment,
Administration Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment,
Administration Department,
Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. .. Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2243 of 2021
and CMP No.17048 of 2021
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
22.09.2021 in IA No.581 of 2021 in OS No.118 of 2009 of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Alandur and consequently allow the IA No.581 of
2021 in OS No.118 of 2009.
For Petitioner : Mr. T.Sai krishnan
For Respondent : Mr. Edwin Prabhakar
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that the answer given to the interrogatories as approved by this Court vide its order dated 08.02.2021 is not complete and does not comply with Rule 11 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The interrogatories that were raised was as to whether the land in Gramanatham Survey No.210/2 falls within the meaning of a religious endowment under Section 6(17) of the HR & CE Act. In answer to that the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No.2243 of 2021 and CMP No.17048 of 2021 respondent namely Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Kancheepuram, has filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:
“I submit that in this case the Gramanatham Survey No.210/2 property is belongs to, given and endowed for the support of Arulmighu Agastheeswar Temple and allied Temples. Hence it is clearly coming within the meaning of religious endowment as defined in Section 6(17) of the HR & CE Act.”
3. According to Mr.T.Sai krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the answer given is insufficient and therefore Rule 11 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be invoked to direct the respondent to give further answers. The question that has been posed is whether the Gramanatham Survey No.210/2 property is coming within the meaning of religious endowment under Section 6 (17) of the HR & CE Act. This question has been answered to the effect that ‘Yes, it is the land which is endowed for the temple and therefore it falls within the meaning of 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No.2243 of 2021 and CMP No.17048 of 2021 religious endowment under Section 6(17) of the HR & CE Act. Whether there was a dedication or not whether this claim made in the affidavit is supported by evidence or not are all questions should be decided after trial. It is open to the petitioner to contend that this land is private land and is not a religious endowment as defined under Section 6(17) of the HR & CE Act and in fact it is the contention of the petitioner in the suit.
4. It is for the respondents to show as to how and when this land was endowed for the temple or as to how this land belongs to the temple or as to how this land constitutes a religious endowment which has been dedicated for the purposes of the temple. These are all the matters of evidence and it will be open to the respondent Department to let in evidence and it will be open to the petitioner to assert that the land being gramanatham land is private land and has not been endowed for the purposes of the temple.
5. I do not think that there could be a further direction under Rule 11 of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the question that was raised has been answered sufficiently. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore fails 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No.2243 of 2021 and CMP No.17048 of 2021 and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
26.11.2021 jv Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes Speaking order/Non Speaking order To
1. The Additional District Munsif, Alandur.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No.2243 of 2021 and CMP No.17048 of 2021 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.2243 of 2021 and CMP No.17048 of 2021 26.11.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis