T W DHANALAKSHMI AND ORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of an ad interim injunction pending disposal of C.C.C. A. No. 81 of 1957.

(2.) The facts are : In Tiruvanmiyur there is a temple by name Sri Maruntheswara-swami temple. It is represented by its executive officer, Umapathi Desikar. Among the properties claimed as temple endowments there is an item, viz., house bearing door No. 21, Mari Chetti Street, Mylapore. The executive officer applied for a certificate under Section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, on account of his being obstructed or prevented in taking possession of this property by persons claiming under a former trustee, one Kanda-swami Chettiar. The Endowments Commissioner, following the procedure prescribed in Section 87, has issued a certificate. Thereupon the petitioners claiming under the former trustee have filed O.S. No. 872 of 1957 in the City Civil Court, Madras, for the reliefs of declaration, etc., that the property in question is not a religious endowment but it is joint family property belonging to the family of Kandaswami Chettiar. The petitioners filed an application for an interim injunction restraining Umapathi Desikar from executing or enforcing the certificate issued under Section 87.

(3.) The learned City Civil Judge took upon himself the wholly supererogatory task of examining at great length the merits of the petitioners' case and came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not adduced any prima facie evidence to show that the suit property is the property of Kandaswami Chettiar and Subbaraya Chettiar and that on the other hand the temple had adduced prlma fade evidence showing that it constitutes a temple endowment and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the temple, because the temple having obtained a valid certificate under the Act, it follows that possession should go to the temple till the petitioners are able to establish their title to the property. In addition, it was also clear that the petitioners would not suffer any irreparable injury by possession being taken by the temple. Therefore, applying the principles for granting or withholding an injunction, the learned City Civil Judge on the merits came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to the injunctions asked for and dismissed the application. Hence the Appeal and the application for interim injunction.