Temple Properties Being Encroached Without Any Guilt, Executive Officer's 'Power' To File Suit Has Transformed Into 'Duty': Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has said Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 can no more be read as requiring an express authorisation from the Commissioner for filing of a suit as the very appointment of the Executive Officer enjoins the said duty.Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the City Civil Court wherein the...
The Madras High Court has said Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 can no more be read as requiring an express authorisation from the Commissioner for filing of a suit as the very appointment of the Executive Officer enjoins the said duty.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the City Civil Court wherein the court authorized the management of the Arulmigu Siddhi Ganesar Natarja Perumal Durgaiamman temple to manage and administer a Kalyana mandapam situated in the temple.
Upon appeal, the petitioners challenged the order by submitting that the suit itself was not maintainable. Placing reliance on the decision of a division bench of Madras High court in Sri Arthanaeeswarar of Tiruchengode v. T.M.Muthusamy Padayachi, etc. & Ors, the appellants submitted that a suit filed by the Executive Officer of the temple without prior authorisation of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department was not maintainable. Since there was no express authorisation in the present case, the suit was liable to be rejected.
Thus, the court noted that the 'power' to file a suit has transformed into a 'duty' to file a suit. In such a situation, the appointment of the Executive Officer itself enjoins a duty to protect the temple property.
Thus, the court noted that the petition was maintainable irrespective of non-authorisation.
When the law has been laid down that it is the duty of the Executive Officer to protect the property and it is incumbent upon him to file the suit, then Section 45 can no more be read as requiring an express authorisation to file a suit as the very appointment enjoins the said duty.
The court also noted that the defendants had failed to provide any evidence with respect to the proper maintenance of temple records. Thus, the temple was entitled to the possession of the suit property. The court thus dismissed the appeal and gave liberty to the respondents (plaintiffs) to file application for quantification of the damages to be recovered.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 522
Case No: A.S.No.397 of 2010