CHANDAYYA ARASU KINNIYAKKA BALLAL Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this appeal is listed for non -compliance of office objections including objection to maintainability of the appeal, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is finally heard and disposed of.

(2.) FACTS in brief are:

(3.) THE genesis of the dispute, apparently, relates to the year 2002 and ever since then parties have been litigating on one pretext or the other, more appropriately by the appellant who is held to have no grievance in the matter of appointing the 5th respondent as hereditary trustee of the Nadava (Bunts) community. That finding of fact recorded by learned Single Judge and confirmed by the co -ordinate Division Bench was affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition. If the appellant was not aggrieved, then, appellant cannot question the legality or validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge or for that matter the order in the writ appeal.