The Madras High Court has ruled that Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, can no longer be interpreted as requiring an express authorization from the Commissioner for the filing of a suit, as the appointment of the Executive Officer itself imposes this obligation.
Brief Facts:
The current appeal was filed to challenge the order made by the City Civil Court which authorized the administrative department of the Arulmigu Siddhi Ganesar Nataraja Perumal Durgaiamman temple to administer and manage a ‘Kalyana Mandapam’ located within the temple itself.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The petitioners cited the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Sri Arthanaeeswarar of Tirychengode vs. T.M. Muthusamy Padayachi, etc. and others 2002 SCC OnLine Mad 514 and contended that a suit initiated by the temple’s Executive Officer lacking prior authorization of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department can’t be maintained. In the present case, there was no explicit authorization and hence, the impugned suit must be rejected.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Placing reliance on the Madras High Court judgment in the case of A.N. Kumar vs. Arulmighu Arunachaleshwarar Devasthanam Thiruvannamali 2011-2-L.W. 1, the respondents contended that in order to safeguard the interests of the temple, it was a duty of the temple’s Executive Officer to file a suit against erring persons.
Observations of the Court:
According to Sections 6 and 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Commissioner defines the duties and powers of the temple’s Executive Officer at the time of his appointment. Hence, the suit was not maintainable without the express authorization. With regards to the eviction proceedings, the court held that it is the Executive Officer’s duty to file a suit to safeguard the interests of the temple’s property. This paradigm shift from power to duty was stressed in light of the march of law seen with reference to the social transformation and in tune with societal concerns. The court observed that with the rapid population growth and urbanisation, the sentiment or fear to not exploit the temple’s property has vanished. In light of the same, the appointment of the Executive Officer comes with a duty to safeguard the temple’s interest. Thus, the petition was maintainable irrespective of the authorization status.
Decision of the Court:
The court rejected the appeal giving the temple the possession of the suit property due to lack of evidence by the defendants (appellants).
Case Title: Durgai Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam and anr. Vs Idols of Arulmigu Siddhi Ganesar Natarja Perumal and another
Citation/Case No.: A.S.No.397 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010
Advocate for the Appellants: M/s. P. Priyanka for M/s. R. Gouri
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Ramalingam and Mr. D.R. Sivakumar for R1
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
0 Comments