RAMAYYA NANDIAR AND ANR. Vs. SRI SWAMINATHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM, BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI M. PARAMASIVAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in the second appeal is whether it is not open to the civil Court to examine whether an order made under Section 29(1) of Madras Act (XIX of 1951) is not in conformity with the requirements prescribed in it. Disagreeing with the trial Court, the lower appellate Court held that there was no such jurisdiction in the civil Court and in that view allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The aggrieved plaintiffs have filed the second appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs as persons interested for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant temple from selling the suit lands. The suit lands are of an extent of one acre and 42 cents which were endowed by one Raghava Nandiar by a trust deed, dated 23rd November, 1914, for the performance of abishekam to Sri Swaminathaswami deity on the occasion of Skandasashti in the month of Arpasi each year at a cost of Rs. 5 and for feeding of one paradesi every day on a scale of half a Madras measure of rice. The donor first nominated Vasudeva Nandiar as a trustee to conduct the charity after his lifetime and provided that after the lifetime of Vasudeva Nandiar, the trustees of the temple should take over the property, manage the same and conduct the abishekam and charity. At the request of the trustees of the Devasthanam the Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments made an order, dated 19th July, 1954, permitting sale of the suit lands. It would appear that the sale was permitted on the ground that having regard to the situation of the lands they were uneconomic and it was inconvenient to manage the same by the temple trustees. By another order, dated 15th January, 1955, the Commissioner directed the trustees to invest the sale proceeds and to perform the charities out of the interest accrued. The plaintiffs who claim to be related to the original founder of the trust and to be persons interested in the performance thereof objected to the proposed sale contending that it would be a breach of trust and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling the suit, lands. The trial Court granted a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs. But the lower appellate Court: reversed the decree in the view that the provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 29 and Section 93 of Madras Act (XIX of 1951) barred the jurisdiction of the civil Court from examining whether the order of the Commissioner was in compliance with section.

(3.) IT is the validity of that order that is challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant before me. He contended that a notification published in the prescribed manner inviting objections and suggestions with reference to the proposed sale was a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 29(1) and that unless this requirement was complied with, any order made under Sub -section (1) would be void as one without jurisdiction. Section 29(1) states that: