IDOL OF ARULMIGHU THAYUMANASWAMI Vs. K ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order permitting sale of the petition property by the 1st respondent herein at the rate of rs. 2,000 per cent. According to the petitioner, the property is Trust property and ought not to have been sold. THE 1st respondent filed Trust O. P. No. 4 of 1994 (in the matter of'Tirunavukkarasu Madalayam Trust') under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts act. THE brief facts of the matter are necessary for appreciation of this revision: One Arumugam Pillai executed a Will dated 21. 2. 1951, Ex. P1. THE properties mentioned in the Will were endowed in favour of Thirunavukkarasu alias Apparswami Madam, an idol installed by the testator in one of the properties mentioned in the will. It was also called the Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam. THE testator himself performed Kumbabishekam to the said Madalayam. He created "specific endowments" for performance of certain religious and charitable acts in connection with the Trichy Rockfort Thayumanaswamy temple. THE devotees and poor people had to be fed and the deity viz. Thayumanaswami along with the Apparswamy idol mentioned above had to be taken in procession around the Rockfort temple streets. THE petition property was endowed for performance of various religious charities including this. THE Will provided for appointment of trustees and devolution of trusteeship. THE 1st respondent claimed to be the sole trustee. He filed the above Trust O. P. seeking permission to sell, on the ground that the annual rental from the property is not sufficient, and the land being agricultural lands are in the occupation of cultivating tenants and that certain purchasers have approached the 1st respondent agreeing to negotiate with the cultivating tenants themselves if the properties are sold to them. According to the 1st respondent, if permission was not granted, the Trust would be put to great hardship. THE e. O. of the idol of Thayumanaswamy filed his counter claiming that he was interested in the petition properties since the properties had been endowed for the performance of the oneday festival in the month of Chithirai on Avitta Nakshathiram. THE learned principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli considered the oral and documentary evidence. THE evidence of R. W. 1, who gave evidence on behalf of the H. R. & C. E. Department, was that Apparswamy Madalayam is not under the control of the department. THE V. A. O. certificate was produced to the effect that the property would be worth about Rs. 2 ,000 per cent. It is the evidence of the 1st respondent that one Unni Krishnan and Rajesh were willing to purchase the property and to deposit the sale consideration into Court. From the order of the District Judge, it is seen that publication was effected and since no one came forward, the learned Principal District judge was satisfied that permission should be granted for sale.

(2.) MR. R. Subramanyam , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this matter related to trust property and sale cannot be permitted merely for the asking. He also brought to the notice of this Court that pending the proceedings and the C. R. P. , the purchasers have proceeded to make further alienation of the property with a view to nullify any orders that may be passed against the sale by this Court. He referred to the Will dated 21. 2. 1951 and to the various clauses thereof which would show that the testator had endowed the property in favou r of the petitioner. He also referred to the definitions of specific endowment as given in the H. R. & C. E. Act and to section 34 which makes alienation of the trust property subject to the provisions of the Act. He also referred to the following decisions: commissioner, H. R. & C. E. Administration Dept. v. C. V. Sundarsan , 2000 (3) L. W. 468, C. Rami Reddy v. Govt. ofa. P. ,a. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1158 R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities, A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 444 and Executive officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy & Ors. ,1999 (3) L. W. 227 He submitted that when the Will clearly states that the A schedule property must be utilised for the performance of poor feeding as well as processions of the deity of the Thayumanaswamy temple, the petitioner was definitely a "person interested" in the trust and his objections ought to have been heard by the learned Principal district Judge. He also submitted that in the matter of religious trusts and properties relating to them, Courts have to be extra vigilant especially when it comes to sale of trust property. It was further submitted that the consideration for which the property had been sold was very low and it was done by private negotiation. Though in the petition, it would appear that the property was sold as agricultural land, subsequently, it has been plotted out. He would submit that it should be the endeavou r of the persons in control and management of trust properties to realis e the maximum price in the event of sale of the trust property. A mere statement that these properties were in the occupation of cultivating tenants and therefore, will not fetch a high price ought not to have been taken at face value.

(3.) IT is futile to urge that the Thayumanaswam y temple is not a party interested in the trust properties. When the testator had endowed the trust properties for performance of certain specific deeds in connection with the petitioner, any alienation of the said properties is definitely a matter that would interest the petitioner temple. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to object to the sale of the endowed properties on the ground that it is not beneficial to the trust.