M KRISHNAN Vs. A BALASUBRAMANIA RAJAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur in Crl.M.P.No.1574 of 1997.

(2.) THE respondent/petitioner herein filed an application under Sec.101 of H.R. & C.E. Act of 1959 before the Judicial Magistrate at Mudukulathur in Crl.M.P.No.1574 of 1997 to direct the delivery of possession of Arulmigu Kamatchi Amman Karupannaswami Thirukoil, Sayalgudi to the petitioner, who is the fit person appointed and in case if there is any resistence, to direct the Inspector of Police, Sayalgudi to give necessary bandobust to the petitioner in taking delivery of possession of the said temple on the following grounds: THE petitioner is now working as Executive Officer of Arulmighu Chookanathaswami Thirukoil, Aruppukottai, Kamarajar District. He has been appointed as fit person of Arulmighu Kamatchi Karupannaswami Thirukoil, Sayalgudi, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramnad District as additional charge to his work by the learned Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Sivaganga in his proceedings Nada Na.Ka. No.5682/96/21, dated 19.5.1997. THE respondent was also directed to hand over the administration of the temple immediately to the petitioner and the petitioner was also directed after taking the charge of the temple to report to him. Since the petitioner was appointed to discharge the functions of the Arulmighu Kamatchi Karuppapnaswamy Thirukoil, Sayalgudi, which is listed as per Sec.46(1) of the Act by the learned Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the respondent is not entitled to be in possession on his own account of the said temple. When the petitioner went to the temple on 3rd June, 1997 to take charge of the temple as per the order mentioned above, the respondent resisted it and prevented him from obtaining possession of the temple and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, this petition.

(3.) THE Executive Officer of a temple is a person appointed as fit person to discharge the functions of a trustee within the meaning of Sec.101(1) of H.R. & C.,E. Act (Vide: Subbayya Gurukkal v. Manicka Vinayagar Temple, (1942)1 M.L.J. (NRC.) 3). In other words the fit person and the trustee are one and the same, and the fit person can be equated to a trustee. This proposition of law is not questioned by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, and so the respondent/petitioner herein, who is an executive officer and who is appointed as a fit person of the disputed temple, can maintain the application under Sec.101(1) of H.R. & C.E. Act since there was no stay in the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Commissioner as against the order dated 17. 5.1997, the revision petitioner herein cannot object to the maintainability of the petition under Sec. 101(1) of H.R. & C.E. Act on that score.