High CourtsDivision Bench(1957) 02 MAD CK 0008

A.V. Subbu Chetty vs C.V. Munuswamy Chetty and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 February 1957 · Citation: (1957) 2 MLJ 161

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramaswami Gounder, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 261 words

Ramaswami Gounder, J.—This is a revision petition filed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate u/s 87 of Madras Act

XIX of 1951 directing delivery of certain properties in favour of the respondent to this revision. He obtained a certificate from the Deputy

Commissioner, and on the basis of that certificate a petition was filed before the Magistrate for delivery. Both before the Deputy Commissioner

and before the Magistrate the contention of the present petitioner was that he was not an ex-trustee or ex-officer of the institution and therefore he

cannot be ousted from the possession of the property. The Deputy Commissioner found that the property belonged to the temple and issued the

certificate without recording a finding whether the present petitioner was an ex-trustee. Similarly, the Magistrate who ordered delivery did not give

a finding on any evidence placed before him that the present petitioner was an ex-trustee and therefore liable to be evicted u/s 87 of the Act. No

doubt the Magistrate states in his order that the present petitioner was an ex-trustee of the same temple, but there was no evidence for it. Nor does

he refer to any evidence on which that conclusion was reached. This is a case where the present petitioner claimed title in his own right. In the

absence of any finding that he was an ex-trustee and in that capacity continued in possession, he could not be ousted by a summary order u/s 87 of

the Act.

2.

This revision is allowed with costs, and the order directing delivery is set aside.