SIVAHARI BAJANAI MADAM TRUST Vs. TMT SOUNTRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER: The above Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order dated 23.12.1994 made in T.C.T.P. Nos. 203 of 1987 to 205 of 1987 respectively by the Revenue Court, Madurai, thereby challenging the decision arrived at by the said court that the petitioner/Trust represented by three Trustees have no locus standi to institute the said petitions since the nature of the Trust, the right to trusteeship and management of the trust properties including the lease amount, which is the subject matter of the petitions and the performance of religious functions have all along been a matter of dispute for many years and thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the revision petitioners herein for eviction of the respondents/tenants for wilful default in payment of the lease rents.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the dismissal of the petitions, filed for eviction of the tenants, the revision petitioners have come forward to file the above three Civil Revision petitions on grounds such as (i) that the order of the Revenue Court is contrary to law and without jurisdiction; (ii) that the Revenue Court materially erred in dismissing the applications for eviction on ground that the petitioners are not competent to represent the Trust thus without going into the merit of the matter; (iii) that the Re venue Court ignoring the vital document i.e. the order passed by the Commissioner, H.R.&. C.E. in A.P. No. 25/1981 "dated 21.9.1981 thereby confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. declaring the petitioner/Trust as a private Trust and not a religious institution under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and further recognizing the petitioners as Trustees, has bluntly passed orders stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petitions; (iv) that the Revenue Court failed to note that the suit filed in O.S. No. 12 of 1982 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai as against the order of the Commissioner. H.R.& C.E. was dismissed for default on 20.9.1989 and therefore the order of the commissioner, H.R. & C.E has become final; (v) that me Revenue court ought to have seen that the petitioners have filed the suit in O.S. No. 142 of 1972, which was renumbered as O.S. No. 192 of 1982 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for declaration and injunction in respect of the Trust properties against the villagers and also the tenant/respondent herein and in the said suit, interim injunction was granted in respect of the Mutt and Mutt buildings and so far as the respondents/tenants are concerned, the injunction was dismissed holding that they are the tenants and therefore the Revenue Court is not right in holding that the petitioners are not competent persons to represent the Trust; (vi) that the Revenue Court ought to have seen that the respondents herein filed suits in O.S. Nos. 145/77, 146/77 and 60/77 on the file of the District munsif, Melur, which on transfer to the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Mudurai got renumbered as O.S. Nos. 195/85, 198/.82 and 196/82 for permanent injunction against the petitioners herein and therefore it is not open to the respondents now to deny the status of the petitioners as Trustees, in view of the compromise decree in the aforesaid suit and (vii) that me Revenue Court ought to have gone into the merit of the case and ought to have allowed the applications for eviction on ground of wilful default in payment of rents and hence on all the above grounds, the revision petitioners would pray for setting aside the order of the Revenue Court, Madurai.

(3.) ON me contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point but mat in me said suit, the villagers and the respondents herein are the defendants and interim injunction was granted in respect of me Mutt and Mutt buildings against the villagers though not against the respondents and since the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 empowers the Revenue Authorities to pass then-own orders, entertaining such applications is well within the bounds of their jurisdiction; mat the civil suit filed on what ever prayer is only a bar so far as the powers of the Revenue Authorities enshrined in the said Act is concerned and since the bar of jurisdiction is operative, the decision mat is going to be taken in future by the civil Court cannot in any manner obstruct the Revenue Authorities from entertaining such applications, holding enquiries and disposing them of and hence on materials available, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue Court having jurisdiction to act in accordance with law and dispose such application.