Dismissed

Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC14 Jun 2016WA(MD)/862/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order recognizing a hereditary trustee. The Court held that since the contesting civil suit determining succession is pending, the appellant cannot dislodge the recognized hereditary trustee, endorsing the view that hereditary trustees should be preferred.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; C.M.P. closed; No costs.

Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian Vs the Joint… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2016

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

Writ Appeal (MD) No.862 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.5161 of 2016

¶8

Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian ..Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Joint Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶11

The Hindu Religious and Charitable

¶12

2.The Thakkar/Executive Officer, A/m.Muthalamman Temple, Vilampatti, Nilakottai Taluk,

¶13

Dindigul District, Office of Kamatchiamman Kovil, Devadanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni.

¶14

3.V.S.Thiruburasundari ..Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.04.2016 made in W.P.(MD).No.7218 of 2016 on the file of this Court.

¶16

Prayer in WP(MD). 7218/ 2016 :

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 825/2016/A1 dated 06.02.16 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader. For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.N.Dilipkumar

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J)

¶21

This writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner whose writ petition in W.P(MD)No.7218 of 2016 has been dismissed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by this Court by its order dated 13.04.2016.

¶22

¶23

2.To cut short a long story, all we need to point out is that in 1991, the competent authority in exercise of power available to him under Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 has passed an order recognising the hereditaryship in favour of one particular branch of the family to which the third respondent claims to belong. That was the subject matter of challenge in a civil suit, O.S.No.652 of 2003 instituted on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Dindigul by this very writ petitioner/appellant which is still pending.

¶24

3.We are now informed at the Bar that in the suit in O.S.No.652 of 2003, all the three relevant and contesting branches of the family are made parties. As of now, the suit is still pending and it is contested very seriously, at any rate by the branch to which the third respondent herein belongs and therefore, it is very clear that until and unless, the suit is decided upholding or recognising the right of the plaintiff therein to succeed as a trustee of the said temple, the writ petitioner/appellant cannot dislodge the third respondent from functioning as a hereditary trustee.

¶25

4.If one were to choose between a fit person who can be appointed as such under Section 54(3) of the Act and a hereditary trustee recognised as such under Section 63, it is always appropriate that hereditary trustee should be permitted to manage the institution so that aims and objects of the institution can be better served. We find no merit in this appeal and the view taken by the learned single Judge is not in an erroneous one.

¶26

5.We hope and trust that the suit in O.S.No.652 of 2003 being a fairly old suit would be taken up for consideration and decided as expeditiously as possible before the Courts close for the next term of pooja holidays.

¶27

6.The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.5161 of 2016 is closed. Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

¶31

¶32

1.The Joint Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

¶34

2.The Thakkar/Executive Officer, A/m.Muthalamman Temple, Vilampatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, Office of Kamathiamman Kovil, Devadanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni.

¶35

+1cc to M/s.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate in SR.30447 +1cc to M/s.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate in SR.30795

¶36

Writ Appeal (MD) No.862 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.5161 of 2016 14.06.2016

¶37

sms PBK/AAL-MPA/SAR-III 22/06/2016 ::3P-5C::

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs R.Pandimeenal

The Assistant Provident Vs S.Sermadurai

Mr.Rex Henry, Vs the Debts Recovery Tribunal

The Joint Director of Vs E.Sankaranarayanan

The Secretary to Government, Vs a.v.High School

Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese Vs S.Merriton Zachariraj