INSPECTOR FIT PERSON Vs. AMIRTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as a fit person of the suit property by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act (H.R. & C.E. Act)-respondents 2 and 3, according to whom, it was a public temple. Thereupon the first respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant for a declaration that the suit properties are private and family properties and not a public temple and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference. . In the plaint the suit property was referred to as 'Sundareswarar Swami Samadhi'. The question of maintainability of the suit was raised by the defendant in view of Section 108 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The Trial Court decided this issue in favour of the first respondent. The learned Single Judge also held that since the suit property is a 'samadhi' ,the suit was maintainable.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant made his submissions with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as on merits and referred to,

(3.) It was submitted that since the main relief sought for would depend upon whether the suit property is a public temple or not this would be a dispute to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 of the Act. It was submitted that clever wording of the prayer would not improve the position and that while it is true that the Civil Court does not lose its jurisdiction with regard to reliefs that cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner and for which no provision is made under the Act, where there is a specific provision for deciding this dispute the respondent ought to have availed of the statutory remedy.