SRI VARDARAJA PERUMAL TEMPLE versus K. RAMACHANDRA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 11-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SRI VARDARA.IA PERUMAL TEMPLE 
v. 
K. RAMACHANDRA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER l.l, 19'15 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SU.JATA V. MANOHAR, .J.T.[ 
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Royatwa1i) 
Act, 1963 : Section 30( l }-Proviso. 
C 
Limitation Act, 1963 : Sections 5, JO and 29. 
Special Appellate Tribunal-Appeal-Limitation period-Temple-
Prope1ty--Tntstee-Appeal after expby of limitation period-Pwpose tp 
prevent grabbing of tntst property-Held, delay dese1Ves condonation as it 
D se1ves a public pwpose-P1inciple undedying section JO of Limitation Act 
held applicable. 
Under Section 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and 
Conversion into Royatwari) Act, 1963 read with proviso thereto the maxi· 
mum time limit to file an appeal before the Special Appellate Tribunal is 
E 
six months. An appeal preferred by the appellant-temple after the expiry 
of limitation period of six months challenging an order passed by the 
Minor lnams Tribunal was dismissed as time barred. 
Allowing the appellant-temple's appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : Though Section Ill of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot strictly . 
apply to the facts of the case in hand, but the spirit and purpose behind , 
it would as it is reflective of the public policy to protect trust properties. 
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections Sand 29 of the Limitation Act, 
and the limitation of six months provided in the Tamil Nadu Act, if, by 
interpretative process, such time is made extendable, no violation to the 
G statute would be caused in pursuing that public policy in reading down the 
provisions of Section 30(1) of the .Tamil Nadu Act, to promote justice and 
permit protection of trust/temple-properties, lest they get into the hands 
of property-grabbers and be subjected to manipulations. The delay in filing 
the appeal before the Special Appellate Tribunal, it being for the purpose 
H of protecting temple property from the hands of adversaries, should 
226 
V.P. TEMPLE v. K. RAMACHANDRA 
227 
deserve condonation, as it did sen'e a public purpose, desen'ing reading A 
down the provision, carving an exception in favour of temple/trust-proper-
ties; The impugned order of the Special Appellate Tribunal is set aside and 
the matter is remanded to it for re-deciding on its own merit. 
[228-F-H, 229-A·B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9G8 of 8 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.78 of the Madras High 
Court in S.T.A. No. 146/75 & S.T.P. No. 23 of 1976. 
j<.V. Mohan for the Appellant. 
K.R. Chowdhary for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
c 
This is an appeal by special leave against an order dated 14.9.1978 D 
in S.T.A. 146 of 1975 passed by the Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 
set up under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and conversion into 
Royatwari) Act, 1963. As statutorily required, the Tribunal is manned by 
two Hon'ble Judges of the Madras High Court. The appellant-temple had 
put to challenge before the Special Appellate Tribunal an order dated 
February 22, 1971 passed by the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore on the E 
merit of the matter. By means of the appellate order afore-referred to the 
Tribunal dismissed the said appeal of the appellant-temple as time barred. 
Under Section 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and 
Conversion into Royatwari) Act, 1963, the limitation for filing an appeal 
before the Special Appellate Tribunal is three months from the date of F 
the order. But, under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30, the 
Special Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not 
exceeding three months for the filing of such appeal. It is plain that the 
maximum time available to file an appeal before the Special Appellate 
Tribunal is six months. The appellant-temple's appear before the Special G 
Appellate Tribunal was admittedly filed beyond a period of six months. 
The expl~nation for delay rendered by it became of no avail.. It is to 
challenge that order that the appellant-temple is before us. 
The disputed temple-property was trust property and noticeably it 
was a trustee \Vho was following it to safeguard the interests of the temple H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
against another set. The period of limitation for filing an appeal before the 
Speci;1l Appellate Tribunal may have been three months, extendable by 
another three months, but in so far as the tru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.