MANICKAM PILLAI (DIED) AND ANOTHER Vs. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN.), DEPARTMENT, MADRAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal coming on for hearing on this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:-

(2.) The appellant in the appeal is the grand son of one Pambukuttia Pillai who purchased the suit property which is a landed one by means of an outright sale deed dated 19-10-1937 under Ex.A.2 and became the owner of the said property. He being the owner of the purchased property and other properties was performing certain festivals every year and doing charities out of the income derived by him from the suit property and other properties and this has been followed by his son after the death of his father and thereafter, during the pendency of the first appeal, on the death of the son of the original purchaser, the present appellant succeeded. The consistent case of the appellant and his predecessors-in-title was that they have been managing and conducting private endowment and thereby doing charities and as such, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., was approached for the relief of declaration under section 63(c) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. However, on hearing the Petitioner, (Plaintiff), the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., had passed an order on 13-3-1974 under Ex.B.2 which had been filed before the Trial Court, declining to accept the plaintiff's case against which an appeal was preferred in A.P. 129 of 1974 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Administration Department, Madras, the 1st respondent herein, which also ended in dismissal, declining to recognise the appellant's suit property as belonging to the private property. Aggrieved at this, the plaintiff preferred a suit O.S. No. 148 of 1976 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichirapalli for the relief of declaring the order passed by the respondent as null and void and for other reliefs. Though the suit was resisted, after full trial, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on two grounds, namely, that the property purchased under Ex.A.2 by Pambukutti Pillai, the original owner, is only for the purpose of religious endowment and that however, the suit was laid without any issue of legal notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is itself a bar for entertaining the suit. Aggrieved at this, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal (A.S. No.828/1981) before this Court.

(3.) On a re-consideration of the entire matter on hand, in accordance with law, the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal on 18-12-1991 confirming the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Trial Judge dated 21-6-1980. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff-appellant has not lost his hope, but, however, continued his relentless effort and preferred Letters Patent Appeal Canvassing the correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court above referred to. A Division Bench of this Court on hearing the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the finding of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 8-3-1995, but, however, restored the first appeal to be re-heard and disposed of and accordingly, it was heard to-day. 3A. I have heard the Bar for and against the concurrent judgments held by the Trial Court as well as the learned single Judge of this Court. It was the contention of Mr. Sethurathinam, learned senior counsel for and on behalf of the appellant that in view of the decision held by the Division Bench of this Court (to which was a party) in the case of Tholappa Iyengar alias Alagar Iyengar Vs. The Executive Officer, Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, Alagarkoil, Madurai (1993) 2 Mad LW 537 wherein the question, whether serving of any legal notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code is a condition precedent to file a suit while challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C. E., was gone into, it has been held that the dismissal of the suit on the ground that no notice was given under section 80' CPC, was not correct and the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed. The learned senior counsel then contended that even the Supreme Court has not given any of its opinion contrary to the decision rendered by the Bench in the above case law. The Bench in the above case law has given its findings in the following words:-