AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Janarthanam, J.M.
Arulmigu Akkasalai Vinayagar Koil is situate at Vadaseri Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The temple, it is said, had been administered by Viswakarma sect by turns. The said sect consists of two groups, going by the name, Periya Katchi and Chinna Katchi. The Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Board, Tirunelveli evolved a fair scheme for the administration of the temple, by notifying the same in the Kanyakumari District Gazette dated May 16,1992 (No. 5 at page 81-82). According to the said scheme, two groups of the sect have to elect their representatives to function as trustees of the temple for a period of three years and the persons so elected must be competent to hold the office. The elected trustees must have to get the prior approval of the Assistant Commissioner, there should be a minimum of three, subject to maximum of five, in the representatives so elected as trustees. From among the trustees so elected, a President again has to be elected and the same has to get the approval of the Inspector or any other person empowered to do so by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Board, Nagercoil. The turn of each group (Katchi) for the administration of the temple shall be for a period of one year to commence from Chithirai and end with Panguni of every Tamil Year,
One Subramania Asari, claiming to be duly elected President of Periya Katchi, getting approval of the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Board, along with four other trustees, filed Crl.M.P. No. 5328 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Nagercoil, impleading ten persons belonging to Chinna Katchi (respondents) praying for delivery of possession of the temple, along with its accounts and properties on the expiry of their turn of office.
The said application had been strongly and stoutly resisted by Chinnakatchi.
On consideration of the materials placed, learned Magistrate allowed the petition directing Chinna Katchi people to hand over possession of the temple, along with accounts and other properties to Periya Katchi, giving rise to the present action.
Chinnakatchi also filed Crl.M.P. No. 2688 of 1994 praying to stay all further proceedings and operation of the order impugned, pending disposal of the revision. On that petition, this Court, on 26.4.1994, passed an order as below:
Interim stay for 8 weeks and notice.
Periyakatchi filed Crl.M.P. 3005 of 1994 and 27th April, 1994 to vacate the stay so granted.
Since the aforesaid two Crl.M.Ps. had not been taken up, Chinnakatchi filed Crl.M.P. No. 3766 of 1994 on 23rd June, 1994 to extend the stay earlier granted, pending disposal of the revision.
When those Crl.M.Ps. came up for hearing the respective learned Counsel for the parties agreed for the disposal of the revision itself and consequently, their arguments were heard.
Axiomatic proposition of law it is, the Magistracy, acting u/s 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is an executing Court and it cannot go behind the order of the Commissioner, in the sense that it is to execute the order without questioning the validity or otherwise of the same. In the case of delivery of possession of the temple, along with the accounts, it is incumbent upon the person seeking delivery of such possession to file the order of appointment. In the case of a person asking for delivery of possession of the properties, along with its accounts, it is also incumbent upon him to produce and file not only the order of appointment, but also the certificate issued by the Commissioner, giving specific details of the properties belonging to such religious institution. Once such an order of appointment and certificate issued therefor had been filed, there cannot be any defence for the person in possession to refuse to give delivery thereof.
In the instant case, admittedly the order of the Competent Authority giving approval of the elected trustees of Periya Katchi had not been filed. This apart, similarly, the order of approval of the Competent Authority for electing Subramania Asari as the President of Periya Katchi had also not been filed. Top of all, the certificate specifying the details of the properties belonging to the temple had also not been filed. But what all was filed in the Court below was the letter of the Assistant Commissioner in Roc. No. 3320/92-A3 dated 14.10.1992. Reference No. 2 therein gives an indication that approval had been accorded by the Deputy Commissioner in his proceedings Roc. No. 10388/92-Bl dated 25.9.1992 to the newly elected five trustees of Periya Katchi. The said letter further indicates that in the meeting held among the newly elected trustees on 1.10.1992, one Subramania Asari had been duly elected as President. It further reveals that consequent upon the election and approval of the new trustees and President for the religious institution, the persons alleged to be in possession of the religious institution and its properties and accounts had been required to hand over possession of the temple and its properties and accounts to the newly elected trustees and the President of the said institution. Though the said letter reveals election of Subramania Asari as President by the newly elected trustees, yet, nothing is found mentioned as to who are the duly elected trustees by mentioning their names. Further, though/copy of the said communication had been sent to all persons alleged to be in possession of the temple and its properties, yet nothing is found mentioned as to the details of the properties belonging to the said institution. It is thus clear that proper materials, in the shape of the order of appointment of trustees, order of appointment of President and certificate specifying the details of the properties belonging to the said institution had not been placed before the Court below. In such circumstances, the order of the Court below directing delivery of possession, along with accounts and properties of the temple of Periya Katchi trustees and President cannot at all be stated to be in accordance with law.
As such, the order under attack deserves to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. It is, however, made clear that it is open to Periya Katchi trustees and President to file a fresh application, along with order of appointment of the newly elected trustees and the President and the certificate specifying the details of the properties belonging to the institution as issued by the competent authority for taking delivery of possession of properties, along with accounts of the temple. The Court below in such'' an eventuality may pass appropriate order.
The revision petition is thus disposed of. Consequently, all Crl. M.Ps. are dismissed.