ARULMIGHU PAPPI CHETTY Vs. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed a statutory suit under Sec. 70 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'HR and CE Act' for the sake of brevity) seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1 st respondent/1st defendant dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Sec. 63(a) of HR and CE Act for declaration that performance of endowment as contemplated under Schedule 'H' to the Trust Deed dtd. 24/7/1912 of the Trust popularly known as 'Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty's Charities' will not come under the purview of HR and CE Act, 1959 (22 of 1959). The appellants also sought for a declaration that the above said Trust was a Private Institution, not coming within the purview of HR and CE Act. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the above said Trust will come under the purview of HR and CE Act. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs has come by way of this appeal before this Court.

(2.) The 1st Plaintiff-Trust namely 'Arulmighu Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty's Charities' was created by one Sri Pappi Chetty Raghava Chetty under a Trust Deed marked as Ex.A1, dtd. 24/7/1912. According to the plaintiffs, the Items 1 to 13 in 'H' Schedule to the Trust Deed was relating to the performance of certain endowments in Temples and other activities mentioned thereon were secular in nature. The plaintiffs contended that no property was endowed or dedicated for the performance of religious, charitable and secular activities contemplated under the Trust Deed. It is stated that a perusal of the Trust Deed would indicate that 'H' Schedule contains various performance of secular activities and only few of the activities are religious in nature and in such circumstances, the 1 st Plaintiff- Trust cannot be treated as a specific endowment within the meaning of Sec. 6 (19) of HR and CE Act. Therefore, in the light of the clauses contained in Ex.A1-Trust Deed, the character of institution shall be determined under Sec. 63 (a) of HR and CE Act. The respondents 1 and 2, in an application filed under Sec. 63 (a) of HR and CE Act, seeking declaration that the 1st Plaintiff-Trust would not come within the purview of HR and CE Act, erroneously rejected the prayer by referring to earlier proceedings mentioned in Ex.A6-Legal Opinion marked by the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for.

(3.) The suit prayer was opposed by the Official Defendants on the ground that the character of institution was decided by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board as early as 7/2/1948 under Madras Act 2 of of 1927 and the said decision had become final and binding on the plaintiffs. It was also stated that the 1st Plaintiff-Trust filed a suit in O.S.No.1985 of 1954 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that Items 1 to 31 in the Schedule 'H' in the Trust Deed were not specific endowments and hence, HR and CE Act 19 of 1951 would not apply to the said Trust and the said suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court holding that the religious activities contemplated under Schedule 'H' were specific endowment. The said decision had attained finality and in view of the same, the appellants cannot reopen the said findings. It was also stated that considering the earlier findings referred to in Ex.A6, the Joint Commissioner rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Sec. 63(a) of HR and CE Act. The said decision was confirmed by the Commissioner in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to reopen the settled question and seek fresh declaration under HR and CE Act, 1959. On these pleadings, they sought for dismissal of the suit.