G. DURAIKANNU Vs. A. NATESA PILLAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's adopted son in O.S. No. 81 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram is the appellant. One Ramaswami Pillai and a son of his brother Kolandavelayutham Pillai effected a partition between themselves on 26th July, 1969. In the said partition certain lands were kept out of division and reserved for certain religious purposes to be set out presently. The area so reserved was of the extent of 38 acres of lands situated in some villages in Thanjavur District. By a subsequent deed, dated 22nd September, 1969, there was same modification of the purpose for which the properties were reserved and a part of the properties originally shown in the document was also excluded. Ramaswami Pillai was to be in charge of doing the obligations contemplated by the said deed. The properties subsequently stood recorded in the name of the successors of the said Ramaswami Pillai. Suo motu proceedings under Section 63(f) and (g) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, were started by the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thanjavur, in O.A. No. 5 of 1965 against the plaintiff, who was at the relevant time in charge of the properties. The plaintiff filed a counter objecting to the said proceedings and pointing out that the properties were not specific endowments for a religious purpose. By an order dated 22nd November, 1966 the Deputy Commissioner held that the properties constituted a specific endowment, that the charities were of a religious nature coming within the scope of Section 63(f) and (g) of the Act and that there was no question of the facts of apportionment between the religious charities and secular charities as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in Appeal No. 14 of 1967. By his order dated 12th January, 1970 he upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff issued the requisite notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, who are the defendants in the present suit informing them that a suit to set aside the orders passed by them would be filed under Section 70 of the Act. The defendants pointed out in their reply that the suit would be barred by limitation. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit for setting aside the orders passed by the defendants and for a declaration that the suit properties were not trust properties and did not constitute a specific endowment, but only private properties subject to the liability for performing certain "ubhayam".

(2.) THE defendants contested the suit stating that the orders passed by them were legal and valid and could not be set aside. They pleaded also that the suit was barred by limitation. They took up another contention in the additional written statement that the document dated 22nd September, 1869 was invalid.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant took before us only one point viz., that there was no specific religious endowment which came within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1969. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the suit was barred by time. We shall first consider the question of limitation. The order of the Commissioner is marked as Exhibit A -2 which is dated 12th January, 1970. A copy of the order communicated to the plaintiff was signed on 15th April, 1970 and it appears to have been received on 18th April, 1970. The order reads as follows: