JOINT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT versus JAYARAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 26-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JOINT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE 
ENDOWMENTS, ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT 
11. 
JAY ARAMAN AND ORS. 
• 
B 
OCTOBER 26, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Trust: 
C 
Indian Trust Act-Section I-Government land dedicated to temples by 
D 
way of grants-Endowment for religious purpose, conduct of poojas in the 
temples and maintenance of the temple-Applicability of the Act-Held: Not 
applicable as it is a religious trust or endowment and not a private trust and 
is governed by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 . 
. Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959-
Sections 63, 34, 41, 6(17), 6(18)-Claimants declared hereditary trustees of 
the temples under the Act-Sought sale of temple property by filing application 
under S.34 of Indian Trust Act without imp/eading the HR & CE department 
as party-District Judge allowing the application-Correctness of-Held: 
E District Judge erred in giving permission for sale-HR & CE department 
control the religious trust and hence was entitled to notice and also made 
a party-Claimants acted totally without bonafides in obtaining orders for 
sale of the property without impleading the department. 
British Government had given the occupation of lands adjacent to 4 
F temples to 'V' to earn income for Pooja and maintenance of temples. The 
Respondents, heirs of 'V' filed a petition under Section 63 of Tamil Nadu 
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to Deputy 
Commissioner, HR & CE Department praying that they may be declared 
hereditary trustees. Deputy Commissioner allowed the petition and asked 
G respondents to pay court fees which they failed, and so no declaration was 
given regarding their rights. Settlement Tahsildar passed an order for issue 
of ryotwari pattas. Respondents belatedly challenged the order before the 
Appellate Tribunal without impleading deity and the H.R & CE Department 
as parties. Appellate Tribunal remitted matter for fresh decision. Even after 
this, necessary parties were not brought on record. Department proposed to 
H 
676 
JOINT COMMR. HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARI. ENDOWMENTS. ADMIN_ DEPT. 1·. JAYARAMAN 
677 
appoint fit person under the Act. Revision was filed against it. When stay was A 
not granted they moved High Court. Tehsildar then allowed claim of heirs 
holding that pattadars would be claimants/respondents instead of the temples, 
by total non-application of mind. Claimants thereafter made an application 
before District Judge under Section 34 of Indian Trusts Act. Again, none 
was shown as opposite party/respondent to that petition. District Judge did B 
not direct claimants to implead the deity or the Department. District Judge 
allowed the application and permitted the sale of the properties and directed 
that proceeds amounting to Rs. 4.50 lacs be deposited in the Bank. The 
claimants promptly sold the property. Department filed a petition under Article 
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of District Judge in 
entertaining the S.34 application. High Court upheld the order of District C 
Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The orders of sale have been obtained by the claimants without 
impleading the deity or the H.R & C.E. Department. The orders so obtained D 
and the patta thus procured, were not binding either on the deities or on the 
H.R & C.E. Department. Therefore, neither the District Judge nor the Judge 
of the High Court could have relied on those proceedings as against the deities 
or as against the H.R. & C.E. Department. [683-F-G] 
2. The claimants had got themselves appointed as hereditary trustees E 
by applying under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and 
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. They could not thereafter shed their 
character as trustees of the temples holding the lands belonging to the temples 
at a subsequent stage at least without impleading the H.R & C.E. Department 
and the deities and without getting a valid adjudication of their right over the F 
properties. It is clear that in spite of the necessity for impleading the H.R & 
C.E. Department the claimants made no attempt to implead it either before 
the Settlement Tahsildar or before the District Judge and consequently, the 
orders passed by the Settlement Tahsildar and by the District Court were 
clearly illegal and not binding on the deities or the H.R & C.E. Department. 
The claimants had, in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.