THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE versus R. SATHYAMOORTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 09-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.,...... 
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE 
A 
v 
R. SATHYAMOORTHY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, O.XXIII Rule 1(1) & '(3)-Withdrawal 
of original and revision petition u11co11ditionally-Wlten pennissible--Petition 
by" trnstees for pennission to sell properties endowed in six public Hindu 
temples rejected by District Court-High Court rejecting trnstees' revision peti-
B 
c 
tion but allowing subsfquent Review Petition and pennitting sale by auc-
tion-Trnstees not obtqining mandatory prior sanction under s. 34( 1) of 
Endowment Act, 1959--Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. filing application before 
District Court for impleadment and stay of sal&-Sale made but not con-
finned-Commissioner initiating proceedings against trnstees under Endow-
D 
ments Act-Supreme Court on consent of, trnstees allowing Commissioner's 
appeal and remanding revision petition to High Court for decision afresh 011 
nature of properties and whether sanction under Endowments Act neces-
sary-Supreme Court directing impleading of auction purchasers, Commis-
sioner. and Executive Officer of temple and opining dropping of proceedings 
E 
by Commissioner against Respondents-Accordingly proceedings against trns-
tees dropped-Trnstees filing memo in High Court seeking to withdraw original 
petition and revision petition-High Court pennitting withdrawal on ground 
that 110 finding of District Court in favour of Commissioner was being nul-
lified-Held, having obtained advantage of ordr of remand, Respondents 
could not preclude High Court from adjudicating matter 011 merits; matter 
remitted to High Court for decision 011 merits in accordance with law. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 115--Scope of High Court's revisional 
jurisdiction-Whether High Court can in a revision petition examine for the 
F 
first time nature of properties and if sanction under Endowments Act for their G 
sale was necessary-Held, there was no jurisdictional flaw in directing the 
High Court· to decide nature of property; High Court could also receive 
additional evidence. 
The predecessors of Respondents 1 and 2 ('trustees') endowed 
various properties for purpose of religious ceremonies in six public Hindu H 
485 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A temples. The trustees filed a petition ('OP') in the District Court under 
the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 ('Trusts Act') for permission to sell the 
properties. The petition was rejected. The High Court dismissed the 
trustees' revision petition ('CRP') but later allowed a review petition and 
permitted the sale of the properties by auction. In a petition filed under s. 
23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 
B 1959 ('Endowment Act') a hereditary trustee informed the Commissioner, 
H.R. & C.E. ('Commissioner') that the sale should be stopped since the 
trustees had not obtained the mandatory prior sanction under s. 34(1) of 
the Endowment Act. The Commissioner then filed an application before 
District Court for impleadment in the OP and stay of sale. The auction 
C was held but the sale was not confirmed. The Commissioner initiated 
proceedings against the trustees under Endowments Act. 
This Court, by consent of the trustees, allowed the Commissioner's 
appeal against the High Court's order permitting sale of properties and 
remanded the CRP to the High Court for a decision afresh on inter alia 
D the nature of the properties and whether prior sanction under the Endow-
ments Act was necessary. This Court .directed impleadment of auction 
purchasers, Commissioner and Executive Officer of temple in the CRP and 
opined that in view of agreement between parties proceedings by Commis-
sioner against the trustees be dropped. Accordingly, the proceedings 
E against the trustees were dropped. 
The trustees then filed a memo in the High Court seeking to 
withdraw both the OP and the CRP. Overruling the Commissioner's 
objections, the High Court permitted withdrawal on the ground that no 
finding of the District Court in favour of Commissioner was being nullified 
F thereby. The Executive Officer appealed to this Court. 
Allowing the appeai, this Court · 
HELD : 1. Having obtained an advantage from the order of remand, 
the hereditary trustees could not have precluded the High Court from 
G adjudicating the matter on merits by withdrawing the CRP and the OP. 
On the ground that they would agree for an adjudication as to the natur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.