ARULMIGU JALA PERUMAL TEMPLE Vs. SETTLEMENT TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred against the Order of the Tribunal passed in C.M.A. No. 5 of 2011, dtd. 13/3/2013, by which, the Appeal filed by the Appellant was rejected on the following grounds namely (i) the alienation made by the erstwhile Service Provider-Govindayyan in favour of one Ponnandi by the Sale Deed dtd. 8/10/1889 has not been challenged; (ii) the Respondents and the predecessor in title were in possession for more than sixty years; (iii) there was unexplained delay in filing the Appeal; and (iv) the Order, dtd. 13/6/1968 passed by the Settlement Tahsildar indicates the service of Notice to the Tahsildar, Udumalpet, the Assessment Settlement Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. It was recorded in the said Judgment that the Service Inam makes a mention about the name of Govindayyan. Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is before us.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that on a conjoint reading of Sec. 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 read with Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965 along with Form 5, a Notice to the erstwhile Inamdar is mandatory. Therefore, Notice ought to have been given in favour of the Appellant. There is no indication of the Notice having been served on the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. Even assuming that Notice has been served after the proceeding was over on the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, the same will not be a ground to deny the fact that the Appellant is entitled to Notice. The Tribunal presumed that Notice has been served on the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments notwithstanding an Affidavit filed by him that he has not been served. A service, if made to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, cannot be a service to the office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.

(3.) He further submitted that the Civil Suits filed would not bar the maintainability of the Appeal. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit filed by the Appellant while allowing the Suit filed by the Respondents primarily on the ground that proceedings have become final inter se the parties, as one of the Respondents was a Lessee of the same property auctioned by the Appellant and, therefore, it is not open to him to contend to the contrary. The Appellant has filed Appeals against the Judgment and Decree of the Civil Courts and, therefore, the Judgment under challenge would require interference. To buttress his submission, learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon the following decisions (i) Joint Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Admn. Department v. Jayaraman and others, 2006 (1) SCC 257; and (ii) Rangasamy Naidu v. Veerappan and others, 1994 (1) MLJ 410.