EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE Vs. R SATHYAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Executive Officer of the Arthanareswarar Temple against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 31-1-1991 in Civil Revision Petition No. 334 of 1987.

(2.) The following are the relevant facts: The predecessors-in-interest of respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, endowed various immoveable properties for the purpose of certain religious ceremonies in six public Hindu temples. The subject-matter of the trust-deed comprises of immoveable properties, lands and buildings and also jewels. The immoveable properties comprised 5.32 hectares of wet land situated in Sathampur village and 9 shop building situated in Netaji Streets, Erode. On 28-10-1986 the respondents 1 and 2, filed a petition O. P. No. 301 of 1985 under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 before the District Judge, at Periyar to permit them to sell the lands and immoveable properties including the nine shops by public auction or by negotiations. Obviously the said petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 as trustees under the trust-deed dated 19-4-1920. The learned District Judge by order dated 28-10-86 dismissed the said petition holding that under the trust deed above mentioned, it was specifically stated that the trust properties should not be sold by the trustees and there was, in any event, no need to sell. Against the said order of the learned District Judge, a revision C.R.P. 334 of 1987 was filed in the Madras High Court but the same was dismissed on 28-11-1988 again on the ground that the sale was prohibited by the trust deed and that circumstances which warrant a sale of the properties did not exist and there was no necessity to sell the properties. Against the said order passed by the learned single Judge, a review application was filed by the respondents 1 and 2. The said review application was however, allowed by the learned single Judge on 3-3-89 granting permission for sale. The learned Judge stated that the contention before him was that the property was not fetching proper income and that if the land was sold, the interest therefrom could be used for the purpose of the temple and such a sale of the immoveable properties would be beneficial and not detrimental to the temple. Accepting this contention, the learned Judge allowed the review application and granted permission of sale of the immoveable properties. It was also stated in the order dated 3-3-1989 that the tenants who appeared through counsel had no objection to the above course. It was further mentioned that the tenants offered to purchase the properties for Rs. 9.25 lakhs. In view of the said offer, the learned Judge directed that the offer of Rs. 9.25 lakhs should be treated as upset price and offers above the said figure should be invited by publication through the District Court and the property be sold to the highest bidder. The entire sale proceeds were to be deposited by the purchaser to the credit of O.P. No. 301 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Periyar, Erode. The District Judge was directed to deposit the said amount in fixed deposit for a period of three years initially and thereafter renew the same once in three years. The deposit was to be made in the State Bank of India, Periyar, Erode in the name of Trust for its use. The trustees (respondents 1 and 2) were to be permitted to withdraw the interest. It was directed that the sale proceeds should not be withdrawn except for depositing the same in some other better security and that too with the approval of the Court.

(3.) One of the hereditary trustees of the temple V. E. Nadanasabhabathy (respondent 5 in this appeal) filed a petition before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act 22 of 1959), (hereinafter called the Endowment Act, 1959) bringing to his notice that the properties had been ordered to be auctioned on 23-12-1989 by the learned District Judge, Periyar, Erode by orders passed in O. P. 301 of 1985 and this should be stopped. In that application, he prayed for stay of the public auction of the properties belonging to the specific endowment attached to the five Temple. He submitted that the District Court had no jurisdiction to auction the specific endowments without obtaining sanction under Section 34(1) of the Endowment Act, 1959. He also prayed the Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. Department to issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., Salem and Assistant Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., Salem to get themselves impleaded in I.A. 2292 of 1989 and in the O. P. No. 301 of 1985 before the District Court, Periyar, Erode and stop the auction scheduled for 23-12-89.