LexTHE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS versus SMT. P.S. SETHURATHINAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ,.r- CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS v. SMT. P.S. SETHURATHINAM B FEBRUARY 2, 1999 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) Hindu Law: c Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Section 45(3) and Section 64(5) r/w Section 118. Scheme framed by Civil Court-Modification of-Power of Deputy Commissionel"--/Jeputy Commissioner acting under S.45(3) modified a D scheme framed by District Court in relation to a temple-Validity of-Held: In view of the decision in T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar's case it is no longer open to the parties to contend that Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction under S. 64(5) to modify a scheme framed by Civil Court-Fur- ther, power cannot be exercised under S. 45 but only under S. 64(5) read with E S.118--Hence, proceedings remitted to Deputy commissioner for fresh con- sideration. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Cha.-itable Endow- ments Department exercising powers under Section 45(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 modified a F scheme framed by the Distict Court in relation to a temple managed by the respondent. However, the High Court held that the Deputy Commis- ,... sioner had no jurisdiction to modify the scheme settled by a civil court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 64(5) of the Act. Hence this appeal. G The following question arose before this Court :- Whether the Commissioner ~r Deputy Commissioner has the power under the Act to modify the scheme framed by a civil court under Section 64(5) read with Section 118 of the Act? H Allowing the appeal in part, this Court 332 COMMR. HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS'· P.S. SEIHURA1HINAM [R. BABU, J.) 333 HELD : 1. In view of the decision in T. Lakshmikumara A Thathachariar's case it is no longer open to the parties to contend that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to modify the scheme framed pursuant to a decree of a civil court in exercise of his power under Section 64(5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. Act, 1959. Further, the power could not be exercised under Section 45 of B the Act modifying the scheme but such power could be exercised only in terms of Section 64(5) read with Section 118 of the Act. Hence, proceedings remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. (335-D-E] T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner, H.R.C.E., (1998) 6 sec 643, relied on. c 0. Radhakrishnan v. Manickam, (1974) (II) MW 179, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1379 Of 1991. D From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.87 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 165 of 1981. T. Harish Kumar, V. KrishNamurthy, V. Ram Subramanium and A Mariarputham for the Appellants. T.L. Ram Mohan and R. Ayyam Perumal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious E and Charitable Endowments Department, exercising powers under Section F 45(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', made an order on February 10, 1965 modifying the scheme in relation to Sri Bhavani Amman Temple in Periapalayam Village in Chingleput district which had been settled by the District Court, Chingleput in O.S. No. 2 of 1949 framed on December 13, 1949. The Managing Trustee of the said G Temple filed appeals and revision petitions before the statutory authorities unsuccessfully. Thereafter, he filed a suit being O.S. No. 74 of 1969 for setting aside the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. Two other suits were filed being O.S. Nos. 81 of 1969 and 74 of 1969. All the suits were decided by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram by his judgment H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A made on February 2, 1972 modifying the orders passed by the statutory authorities and decreed the suit to a limited extent. An appeal was preferred to the High Court. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board also had filed an appeal to the extent that the Subordinate Judge had decreed the suit in favour of the Managing B Trustee. These two appeals were heard along with other appeals and, following the decision of the court in 0. Radhakrishna & Anr. v. Manickam & Ors., (1974) II MU 179, the High Court took the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.