The Commissioner, HR and CE Admn. Department vs Hindu Temple Kazhaam

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC to review the judgment rendered by the

Division Bench in the appeal in A.S. No. 10 00 of 1989 dated 3.3.2004. The respondent herein filed the said appeal before the Division Bench

against the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, who confirmed the findings of the

Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., holding that respondent Kazhagam cannot be considered as a hereditary trustee. Before the Division Bench, the

one and only question that had been raised for consideration was whether the respondent/plaintiff Kazhagam could be held to be hereditary trustee

u/s 6(11) of the H.R. and C.E. Act. The issue was considered by the Division Bench in favour of the respondent herein and the appeal was

allowed. Paragraph 5 of the judgment of Division Bench reads as follows.

While considering the similar issue, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1997 (II) LW 151 Sri Vedantha Sthapana Sabha,

Nanganallur v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (Admn) Department held that even the fluctuating body can hold the right of administering and

managing the temple and have the trusteeship thereof within the meaning of Section 6(22).

The Division Bench after extracting relevant portion of the judgment in reported in 1997 (II) LW 151 Sri Vedantha Sthapana Sabha,

Nanganallur v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (Admn) ultimately allowed the appeal by answering the question of law to the effect that the

fluctuating body Kazhagam could be held as hereditary trustee u/s 6(11) of the H.R. & C.E., Act. Now that the appellant/respondent has filed the

review application to review the Division Bench judgment on the following grounds:

The judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.1000 of 1989 dated 3.3.2004 in allowing the appeal are liable to be reviewed in view of the

Supreme Court judgment in C.A. No.5093 of 1998 dated 7.5.2004.

This Hon''ble Court allowed the appeal filed by the Hindu Temple Kazhagam holding that the Kazhagam will be regarded as hereditary trustee

of the temple within the meaning of H.R. & C.E Act. Relying on the Division Bench judgment reported in 1997 (2) LW 151 Sri Vedantha

Sthapana Sabha, Nanganallur v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (Admn. Department) which held that the fluctuating body can hold the right of

administering and managing the temple and have the trusteeship within the meaning of Section 6(22) of H.R. & C.E. Act.

The very same judgment reported in 1997 (2) LW 151 was challenged by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department before the

Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5093/98 and the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court, Madras by order dated

7.5.2004 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5093/88 the Judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 1000/89 dated

3.3.2004 are liable to be reviewed and the same has to be dismissed.

From the above grounds, it is evident that the Review Application is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Admn.), Madras and Another Vs. Vedantha Sthapna Sabha, ,. Can the subsequent decision of the

Superior forum be a ground for reviewing the order passed by the Court could be seen from the statutory provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2

which reads as follows:

Application for review of Judgment

(1) ...

(2) ...

Explanation � The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the

subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment

When a statute provides that subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case shall not be ground for reviewing a judgment, the review

application now filed based on the decision of the Supreme Court, which is subsequent to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this

Court, which is sought to be reviewed cannot be legally sustainable. It is well settled that even justice has to be rendered only in accordance with

the statutory provisions. Useful reference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Kaur and Ors. v. Kaki and Ors. 2006 AIR

SCW 2404.

For the foregoing reasons, the Review application is dismissed.