KUTTIAMMAL Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1996 made in O.S.No.153 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs 1 to 6 in the suit filed before the Trial Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellants the suit temple Senkaliyamman Koil in Sembilivaram village, Ponneri Taluk, hereinafter referred as 'the Temple', belongs to their family. They have further stated that it is a private temple built up on the patta lands of the appellants, over 11 cents of land, in S.No.32/4 and 16 cents in S.No.29/3 in the Sembilivaram village. ACCORDING to them, the founder of the temple was their ancestor who had formed the temple for the family worship and the same was not used by public, as a place of religious worship, as a matter of right. They have further stated that a dispute arose subsequently among the appellants 1 to 6 and the deceased seventh plaintiff and others regarding the hereditary trusteeship and the management, which resulted in filing a petition under Section 63-A of HR & CE Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE and numbered as O.A.No.14 of 1983 and the seventh plaintiff was initially respondent in the application. While the proceeding was pending, the second respondent herein appointed the first respondent as Executive Officer, without giving notice to the Hereditary trustees and without assigning any reason by his proceedings in R.D-is 119622/82 dated 16.12.1982.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, neither the appellants nor their ancestors were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the temple and the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE by his proceedings No.4256/82 dated 14.10.1982, had issued charge memos to the non-hereditary trustees for misappropriation and for submission of false accounts. ACCORDING to the first respondent, the second appellant had deposited only Rs.9,050/- in the Bank though the collection was at Rs.34,450.19, in the fasli 1390 and in the turn of functioning as trustees the appellants 2 to 4 also committed misappropriation, by submitting false accounts to the authorities. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner directed the trustees to show cause within 15 days as to why the loss to the temple should not be recovered from them, under Section 33(1) of the Act and asked them to show cause within seven days as to why an executive officer should not be appointed. Subsequently, the Commissioner, the third respondent by his proceedings in R.D-is 119622/82 dated 16.12.1982 appointed Thiru.Pattabi Subramaniam as Executive Officer, as the trustees had failed to show cause for about two months against the grave charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by which the appellants 1 to 6 filed W.P.No.1783 of 1983 for quashing the order appointing the Executive Officer, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the appellants filed another W.P.No.3626 of 1983 dated 06.04.1983 for the same relief against the same respondents which was also dismissed.