AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order permitting sale of the petition property by the 1st respondent herein at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per cent.
According to the petitioner, the property is Trust property and ought not to have been sold. The 1st respondent filed Trust O.P.No.4 of 1994 (in
the matter of ''Tirunavukkarasu Madalayam Trust'') u/s 34 of the Indian Trusts Act. The brief facts of the matter are necessary for appreciation of
this revision:
One Arumugam Pillai executed a Will dated 21.2.1951, Ex.P1. The properties mentioned in the Will were endowed in favour of Thirunavukkarasu
alias Apparswami Madam, an idol installed by the testator in one of the properties mentioned in the will. It was also called the Thirunavukkarasu
Madalayam. The testator himself performed Kumbabishekam to the said Madalayam. He created-""specific endowments"" for performance of
certain religious and charitable acts in connection with the Trichy Rockfort Thayumanaswamy temple. The devotees and poor people had to be fed
and the deity viz. Thayumanaswami along with the Apparswamy idol mentioned above had to be taken in procession around the Rockfort temple
streets. The petition property was endowed for performance of various religious charities including this. The Will provided for appointment of
trustees and devolution of trusteeship. The 1st respondent claimed to be the sole trustee. He filed the above Trust O.P. seeking permission to sell,
on the ground that the annual rental from the property is not sufficient, and the land being agricultural lands are in the occupation of cultivating
tenants and that certain purchasers have approached the 1st respondent agreeing to negotiate with the cultivating tenants themselves if the
properties are sold to them. According to the 1st respondent, if permission was not granted, the Trust would be put to great hardship. The E.O. of
the idol of Thayumanaswamy filed his counter claiming that he was interested in the petition properties since the properties had been endowed for
the performance of the one day festival in the month of Chithirai on Avitta Nakshathiram. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli
considered the oral and documentary evidence. The evidence of R.W.1, who gave evidence on behalf of the H.R. & C.E. Department, was that
Apparswamy Madalayam is not under the control of the department. The V.A.O. certificate was produced to the effect that the property would be
worth about Rs. 2,000 per cent. It is the evidence of the 1st respondent that one Unni Krishnan and Rajesh were willing to purchase the property
and to deposit the sale consideration into Court. From the order of the District Judge, it is seen that publication was effected and since no one
came forward, the learned Principal District Judge was satisfied that permission should be granted for sale.
Mr.R. Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this matter related to trust property and sale cannot be permitted merely
for the asking. He also brought to the notice of this Court that pending the proceedings and the C.R.P., the purchasers have proceeded to make
further alienation of the property with a view to nullify any orders that may be passed against the sale by this Court. He referred to the Will dated
21.2.1951 and to the various clauses thereof which would show that the testator had endowed the property in favour of the petitioner. He also
referred to the definitions of specific endowment as given in the H.R. & C.E. Act and (o Section 34 which makes alienation of the trust property
subject to the provisions of the Act. He also referred to the following decisions: Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Dept. v. C.V.
Sundarsan, 2000 (3) L.W. 468 , Chenchu Rami Reddy and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, R. Venugopala Naidu and
Others Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and Others, and Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy & Ors., 1999 (3)
L.W. 227 He submitted that when the Will clearly states that the A schedule property must be utilised for the performance of poor feeding as well
as processions of the deity of the Thayumanaswamy temple, the petitioner was definitely a ""person interested"" in the trust and his objections ought
to have been heard by the learned Principal District Judge. He also submitted that in the matter of religious trusts and properties relating to them,
Courts have to be extra vigilant especially when it comes to sale of trust property. It was further submitted that the consideration for which the
property had been sold was very low and it was done by private negotiation. Though in the petition, it would appear that the property was sold as
agricultural land, subsequently, it has been plotted out. He would submit that it should be the endeavour of the persons in control and management
of trust properties to realise the maximum price in the event of sale of the trust property. A mere statement that these properties were in the
occupation of cultivating tenants and therefore, will not fetch a high price ought not to have been taken at face value.
Mr. Loganathan appearing for Mr.A. Saravanan submitted that the petitioner is not at all a necessary party and had no locus standi either to
object to the sale or to maintain the revision petition. If at all a person is interested in the proper management of the petition property, it is the
Thayumanaswamy Madam and the 1st respondent being the sole trustee of the Thayumanaswamy Madam, the interest of the Trust was well safe
guarded. He would further submit that the endowment is not a specific endowment and therefore, is not governed by the provisions of H.R. &
C.E. Act and since there is no divesting in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has no say in the matter. Respondents 3 and 4 though served, did
not enter appearance.
The relevant extracts of the Will are as follows:
It appears from a reading of these recitals that the testator had endowed these properties in favour of Thirunavukkarasu Apparswamy
Madalayam and in addition to all that had to be done in the Madalayam, these properties were also to be used for the Kainkaryams on the day of
Avitta Nakshathiram in the month of Chithirai when the idol of Tirunavukkarasu alias Apparswamy would be taken along with the idol of
Thayumanaswamy in procession in the streets of Rockfort and the poor and the devotees had to be fed both at the Pushpamandapam near
Thayumanaswamy temple as well as the trust Madalayam. In fact, in the petition itself, it is stated as follows:
He also created specific endowments connected to the festival of Trichy Rockfort Sri Thayumanavaswamy Temple and feeding devotees at the
time of the said festival besides taking the deity along with Apparswamy Idol in procession around the streets of Rockfort Temple. For the purpose
of the said Trusts and Charities, he endowed the properties set out in the A Schedule to the said Will.
In the decision reported in R. Venugopala Naidu and Others Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and Others, , the question as to who were
interested parties in a public trust came up for consideration. A reference was made in that decision to the case reported in Raje Anandrao Vs.
Shamrao and Others, wherein it was held as follows:
........It is true that the pujaris were not parties to the suit under S. 92 but the decision in that suit binds the pujaris as worshipers so far as the
administration of the temple is concerned, even though they were not parties to it, for, a suit under S. 92 is a representative suit and binds not only
the parties thereto but all those who are interested in the trust.
It is futile to urge that the Thayumanaswamy temple is not a party interested in the trust properties. When the testator had endowed the trust
properties for performance of certain specific deeds in connection with the petitioner, any alienation of the said properties is definitely a matter that
would interest the petitioner temple. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to object to the sale of the endowed properties on the
ground that it is not beneficial to the trust.
The definition of ""specific endowment"" in the H.R. & C.E. Act reads thus:
Section 6(19): ""Specific endowment"" means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or
temple, or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause
(17).
In this case, the A-schedule property Ex.P1 Will, was endowed to the Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam for the performance of specific service
and charity in connection with the festival of Chithirai Avittam in Thayumanaswamy temple. Therefore, what was created under the Will was
definitely ""specific endowment"" and it has been so admitted by the 1st respondent as seen from the extract of petition referred above. The deed
refers to beneficiaries of the endowment who are the devotees and poor people. The endowment is with relation to an observance of religious and
charitable character; ''charitable'' since the poor are fed, ''religious'' since the idol of Thayumanaswamy is worshipped and thereafter taken in
procession. For this amongst others the founder had set apart the property and had intended that the income therefrom should be utilised for their
performance. Therefore, definitely a ""specific endowment"" was created in favour of the petitioner and the decision reported in Commissioner, H.R.
& C.E. Administration Dept. v. C.V. Sundarsan, 2000 (3) L.W. 468 applies to this case.
Now, we come to the question of whether the sale to two private parties was in order. The grievance raised by the petitioner is four fold: (1)
That the consideration is too law; (2) sufficient publicity was not given for the sale; (3) the sale was effected by private negotiation; and (4) after
selling the property as agricultural land, the land has been plotted out which would necessarily mean that a higher value would be realised and this
was denied to the trust. In this regard, we may refer to the following decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner.
The case reported in Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy & Ors. 1999 (3) L.W. 227 also arose u/s 34 of the
Trusts Act where the District Judge had declined to grant permission to sell the properties in which it was held that courts have a general parence
partria jurisdiction over trusts for charitable and religious purposes.
In the decision reported in Chenchu Rami Reddy and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , the Supreme Court held thus:
We cannot conclude without observing that property of such institutions or endowments must be jealously protected. It must be protected, for, a
large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it (that is the raison d''etre of the Act itself). The authorities exercising the powers under
the Act must not only be most alert and vigilant in such matters but also show awareness of the ways of the present day world as also the ugly
realities of the world of today. They cannot afford to take things at their face value or make a less than the closest-and-best-attention approach to
guard against all pitfalls. The approving authority must be aware that in such matters the trustees, or persons authorised to sell by private
negotiations, can, in a given case, enter into a secret invisible underhand deal or understanding with the purchasers at the cost of the concerned
institution. Those who are willing to purchase by private negotiations can also bid at a public auction. Why would they feel shy or be deterred from
bidding at a public auction? Why then permit sale by private negotiations which will not be visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public
suspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so? And care must be taken to fix a reserve price after ascertaining the market value for
the sake of safeguarding the interest of the endowment. With these words of caution, we close the matter.
In R. Venugopala Naidu and Others Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and Others, also, the Supreme Court following the above decision,
i.e., Chenchu Rami Reddy and Another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, directed the properties in question to be sold by public
auction by giving wide publicity regarding the date, time and place of public auction and directed that a reserve price should also be fixed after
ascertaining the market value.
In this case, in the petition, there is reference to one Sundari and Sulochana to purchase the suit property. Thereafter suddenly, one
Unnikrishnan and Rajesh appear to have offered to purchase the property pending the trust O.P. These two persons were also impleaded in the
revision by order dated 19.10.2000. Thereafter admittedly the properties had again passed hands to third parties. Since the guidelines laid down
by the Supreme Court in matters where the trust properties are sold have not been followed in the instant case, I have no hesitation in setting aside
the order of the court below. The matter is remanded to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned District Judge shall
again consider whether the sale is in the interest of the trust after hearing the parties and if the District Judge is satisfied that permission should be
granted, he shall fix the reserve price after ascertaining the market value so that the interest of the trust is safeguarded and thereafter, conduct the
sale by public auction by giving wide publicity regarding the date, time and place. The 3rd and 4th respondents who claim to have purchased the
property shall be entitled to refund of the price paid by them with 10% interest from the date of payment of the amount till the date of auction of the
property. The C.R.P. is allowed with costs of Rs. 3,000 to be paid by the 1st respondent. Connected CMPs are closed.