LexT. LAKSHMIKUMARA THATHACHARIAR versus COMMISSIONER, H.R.C.E. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
T. LAKSHMIKUMARA THATHACHARIAR A v. COMMISSIONER, H.R.C.E. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER, 2, 1998 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.I.] B Hi11du Law : T.N. Hi11du Religious and Chwitable Endowments Act, 1959: Sections 64(5)(a) and 118(2)(a). C Religious and Chwitable Endowments-Modification of schem~By Deputy Commissio11e1~Power of-Scop~Held, covers modification of a scheme framed under S.92 CPC by High Coiut-Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927-Ss.75 and 57(a)-T.N. Hindu Religious and Chwitable E11dowme11ts Act, 1951-Ss. 62(3)(a) and 103(d)-Code of Civil D Procedure, 1908-S.92--Code of Civil Procedure, 1882-S. 539. Section 64(5)-Constitutionality-Held : S.64(5) is constitutionally valid-Contention that S. 64(5) attempts to 11ullify the orders of cowt which are in the fonn of schemes framed under earlier legislation, rejected-Con- stitution of India, 195(}-Arl 246. E Words and Phrases : "By the Cowt"-Meaning of-In the context of S.64(5)(a) of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Chi11itable Endowments Act, 1959. A scheme for the administration and Trusteeship of a temple was originally settled in 1909 by the High Court under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on an application filed under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The High Court modified the said scheme in 1941 under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. · In the year 1982, the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments initiated proceedings under Section 64(5) of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 for modifica- tion of the scheme settled by the High Court in 1941. The appellant filed F G a writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid proceed- H 359 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A ings, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Deputy Com- missioner had no jurisdiction under Section 64(5) of the Act of 1959 to modify a scheme originally framed under Section 92 of the CPC by the High Court, that only the schemes which were settled or deemed to be B settled or modified by the Court under Section 118(2) (a) of the Act of 1959 would fall within the ambit of the amending power of the Deputy or Joint Commissioner under Section 64(5)(a); that under Section 118(2) (a) there was no reference to any scheme being deemed to be settled by a court and therefore, the scheme under question was not covered under Section 64(5); C and that the provisions of Section 64(5) are an attempt by the Legislature to nullify the orders of the court which were in the form schemes framed by the court under earlier legislation and, therefore, Section 64(5) must be considered as unconstitutional being an attempt to set aside or modify a decree of court. D Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. Section 118(2)(a) of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 saves actions under the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as enumerated in that E Section. Therefore, under Section 64(5) apart from the schemes framed under the current Act of 1959, the scheme settled by the Board as well as by the Court under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 or deemed to be so settled are also covered. Similarly, schemes which are settled or deemed to be settled under the Act of 1951 are covered by the F last part of Section 64(5). The reference in the last part of Section 64(5) (a) to Section 118(2) (a) is for the purpose of including in Section 64(5) (a) all those schemes settled or deemed to be settled under the Act of 1951 and saved by Section 118(2)(a). In Section 64(5)(a) the words 'by the court' have a reference to schemes, which were settled or deemed to be settled or G modified by the Court under the Act of 1951, the reference is clearly to the schemes covered by Section 103 ( d) of the Act of 1951. All those schemes which were so settled or modified or deemed to be so settled or modified by the Court under 103 ( d) of the Act of 1951, are now covered and validated under Section 118(2)(a). These schemes so validated and continued under the Act of 1959 can also be modified under Section 64(5)(a) of the Act of H 1959. (369-B-GJ -- - T. L. THATHACHARIARv. COMMR. H.R.C.E. [SUJATA V. MANO HAR, J.] 361 R. Ihatha Desika Thathachariar v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu A Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration),
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.