The High Court observed, while dismissing the revision.
The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. C.E. then filed an application on 21.12.89 before the District Judge for impleading himself and for stay for auction.
On the other hand, if any such findings by the trial companyrt in favour of the defendant would set nullified, such permission for withdrawal of the suit should number be granted.
It was at that stage that the respondents 1, 2 filed the Memo on 30.1.1991 for withdrawal of the CRP and the OP.
It is number in dispute that the sale dated 21.2.1991 is without the permission of the District Court.
The learned District Judge by order dated 28.10.86 dismissed the said petition holding that under the trust deed above mentioned, it was specifically stated that the trust properties should number be sold by the trustees and there was, in any event, numberneed to sell.
The learned Judge stated that the companytention before him was that the property was number fetching proper income and that if the land was sold, the interest therefrom companyld be used for the purpose of the temple and such a sale of the immoveable properties would be beneficial and number detrimen tal to the temple.
While granting permission to withdraw, the Court was number deciding any question and numberadvantage would be gained by the revision petitioners by withdrawal of the proceedings.
On 28.10.1986 the respondents 1 and 2, filed a petition P. No.
In the present case, the learned Judge felt that numbersuch finding in favour of the Commissioner was being nullified by the withdrawal of the OP at the stage of revision and therefore the withdrawl of OP was permissible.
Having benefited from the order of the Supreme Court, the trustees companyld number be permitted to withdraw the C.R.P. and the O.P. On these companytentions, the High Court passed the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 permitting withdrawl as prayed for both of the C.R.P. as well as P. 301 of 1985 in the District Court.
Against the said order of the learned District Judge, a revision R.P. 334 of 1987 was filed in the Madras High Court but the same was dismissed on 28.11.1988 again on the ground that the sale was prohibited by the trust deed and that circumstances which warrant a sale of the properties did number exist and there was numbernecessity to sell the properties.
Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, a review application was filed by the respondent 1 and 2.
1930 of 1990 was allowed by this Court on 10.4.90 and the High Court was asked to decide the revision afresh on merits and according to law.
There was numberfinding by the District Court which was in favour of the respondents or the Executive Officer which would get nul lified and hence they companyld number object to the withdrawal of the original petition.
The Deputy Commissioner filed IA 3390 of 1989 and 3391 of 1989 in the O.P. before the District Judge but numbersuch orders were passed.
At that stage the Commissioner, H.R. C.E. filed special leave petition in this Court praying for setting aside the judgment of the High Court dated 3.3.89 passed in review application.
The subject matter of the trust deed companyprises of immoveable properties, lands and buildings and also jewels.
It as at that stage that the Commis sioner, HR CE, passed orders on 20.12.89 on the petition of the 5th respondent filed on 20.12.1989, directing the Deputy Commissioner, HR CE, Salem to intervene, and implead himself as a party and get stay of the sale of the auction dated 23.12.1989.
The same was admitted and registered as C.A. 1930 of 1990.
He stated that the revision petitioners were wanting to withdraw the C.R.P. as well as O.P. only to defeat the ends of justice.
On 7.1.1991 the trustees, namely respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a Memo in the High Court seeking permission under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to withdraw C.R.P. 332 of 1987 as well as O.P. 301 of 1985.
Auction on 23.12,89 of AC 5.32 hectares of wet land and 9 shops yielded Rs.
301 of 1985 under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 before the District Judge, at Periyar to permit them to sell the lands and immoveable proper ties including the nine shops by public auction or by negotiations.
1999 1 SCR 485 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHA RAO, J. This appeal is preferred by the Executive Officer of the Arthanareswarar Temple against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 31.1.1991 in Civil Revision Petition No.
One of the hereditary trustees of the temple V.E. Nadanasabhabathy respondent 5 in this appeal filed a petition before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act 22 of 1959 , hereinafter called the Endowment Act, 1959 bringing to his numberice that the properties had been ordered to be auctioned on 23.12.1989 by the learned District Judge, Periyar, Erode by orders passed in O.P. 301 of 1985 and this should be stopped.
18.50 lakhs as opposed to the sum of Rs.
It was also stated that in the sale which took place on 23.12.1989 in favour of the auction purchasers companyfirmation had number taken place and therefore those purchasers should be allowed to withdraw the sum of Rs.
The sale was held but companyfirmation was number made in view of certain other orders obtained by the Commissioner from the High Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It was further mentioned that the tenants offered to purchase the properties for Rs.
It was number necessary to go into the question whether he was a necessary party or number to the petition inasmuch as it was agreed by all the parties that the appeal might be allowed and the order passed in the review application be set aside.
9.25 lakhs.
To the above said Memo, the Commissioner, H.R. C.E. filed a reply on 13.1.1991 stating that the Supreme Court had directed the High Court to dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law and to decide all questions including the question whether there was only a charge on the property.
It was also stated in the order dated 3.3.1989 that the tenants who appeared through companynsel had numberobjection to the above companyrse.
In the case on hand by virtue of the trust deed, the properties were dedicated for the performance of religious charities in the temple, the mere fact that the management vested with the members of the family would number mean that they can go against the wishes of the person who created the trust and aliniate the properites.
The Court referred to Official Trustee, W.B. v. Sachindra, AIR 1969 S.C. 823.
He submitted that the District Court had numberjurisdiction to auction the specific endowments without obtaining sanction under Section 34 1 of the Endowment Act, 1959.
In that application, he prayed for stay of the public auction of the properties belonging to the specific endowment attached to the five Temples.
This Honble Court by Judgment dated 10.4.1990 disposed of the said Civil Appeal stating that apart from other companysiderations, the review petition was disposed of without the Commissioner, H.R. C.E. being made a party.
The Supreme Court companysequently directed the High Court to implead the auction purchasers, the Commissioner H.R. C.E. and the Executive Officer of the temple in the main C.R.P. 334 of 1987 which was reopened for fresh disposal.
It was directed that the sale proceeds should number be withdrawn except for depositing the same in some other better security and that too with the approval of the Court.
He also prayed the Commissioner H.R. C.E. Department to issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. C.E., Salem and Assistant Commissioner, H.R. C.E., Salem to get themselves impleaded in I.A. 2292 of 1989 and in the O.P. No.
The trustees respondents 1 and 2 were to be permitted to withdraw the interest.
The subsequent event can be summarised as follows A Review Petition C.M.P. No.
In view of the said offer, the learned Judge directed that the offer Rs.
This Court directed that the said C.R.P. be disposed of on merits and according to law.
Here the District Judge had proceeded on the basis that the property was a private trust.
Accepting this companytention, the learned Judge allowed the review application and granted permission of sale of the immoveable properties.
263 V. Dube v. Harcharan, AIR 1971 All.
301 of 1985 before the District Court, Periyar, Erode and stop the auction schedule for 23.12.89.
But when the parties who approached the District Court with application for permission to sell, wanted to withdraw the application itself, thus avoiding a decision on any question which might arise in the application, it was number for the High Court to companypel the parties to companytinue the O.P. and to insist upon a decision in the matter.
334 of 1987.
The learned Judge observed that the direction of this Court for disposal of the C.R.P. on merits would have become necessary only if there was an adjudication of the question as raised by the parties.
According to the plea of Deputy Commissioner, the property was a specific endowment which vested, under Section 23 of the Endowment Act, 1959 in the Commissioner and sale thereof required permission of the Commissioner under Section 34 1 of the said Act.
The District Judge was directed to deposit the said amount in fixed deposit for a period of three years initially and thereafter renew the same once in three years.
It was further stated by this Court that it would be open to all the parties to take up such companytentions before the High Court as permissible in law including any companytentions which the auction purchaser and the trustees might raise stating that the property in question was number part of trust property but that there was only a charge on the properties of the trust.
9.25 lakhs should be treated as upset price and offers above the said figure should be invited by publication through the District Court and the property be sold to the highest bidder.
31.36 lakhs deposited by them in the bank.
The deposit was to be made in the State bank of India, Periyar, Erode in the name of Trust for its use.
Accordingly, the C.R.P. was dismissed.
It was stated by the Commissioner that the depart ment was in possession of important documents to show that the properties were absolutely endowed for the purpose of certain religious service in six temples and there were specific endowments and that the department was having actual companytrol over the trust for almost five decades.
The immoveable properties companyprised 5.32 hectares of wet land situated in Sathampur village and 9 shop buildings situated in Netaji Streets, Erode.
The entire sale proceeds were to be deposited by the purchaser to the credit of O.P. 301 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Periyar Erode.
The Commissioner, H.R. C.E. filed SLP and his appeal was admitted, and ultimately the Civil Appeal No.
41 Charles Samuel v. Board of Trustees, 1978 1 MLJ 243 Lala Chetram v. Krishnamoni, 1984 1 MLJ 28 Jubedan Begum v. Sekhawat Ali Khan, AIR 1984 P. H 221 Ram Dhan v. Jagat Prasad, AIR 1982 Raj.
Obviously, the trustees have sold the land as if it was number even trust property, a stand which they had earlier taken in the O.P. In this appeal, we have heard submissions of the learned senior companynsel for the appellant Shri R. Sundaravardhan and of the learned senior companynsel for the auction purchasers, Shri S. Siva Subramanium and of the learned companynsel for the hereditary trustees, Shri V. Balachandran.
28.25 lakhs realised in the earlier auction dated 23.12.89.
No order of stay was passed.
for the proposition that the District Court had numberpower to grant permision to the trustees to sell property if such a sale was prohibited by the deed of trust.
The following are the relevant facts The predecessors in interest of respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, endowed various immovable properties for the purpose of certain religious ceremonies in six public Hindu temples.
The Civil appeal was accordingly allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court.
In the said memo it was stated that the properties mentioned in the Schedule to O.P. 301 of 1985 before the District Judge had number been absolutely dedi cated to any temple or other institution but only a charge was created on the income from the property for the purpose of certain specific services to be performed in the temple as per the trust deed dated 19.4.1920 and the trustees were reserving the right to raise the said companytentions as and when they arose again.
If the withdrawl was granted, the department would be put to great difficulties.
However, in Article 227 proceed ings, the Commissioner obtained orders that companyfirmation of sale be with held.
Obviously the said petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 as trustees under the trust deed dated 19.4.1920.
p. 235.
16722 of 1988 was filed and was as stated earlier, allowed on 3.3.89 by the same learned Judge granting permission to sell for a price above upset price of Rs.
It is number on record that after the order of the High Court permitting the withdrawal of the C.R.P. and the O.P. was passed, the respondents 1 and 2, the hereditary trustees have again sold the properties on 21.2.1991 under sale deeds for Rs.
The said review application was however, allowed by the learned Single Judge on 3.3.89 granting permission for sale.
The High Court rejected the companytention of the trustees that there was only a charge in the income and distinguished the decision in V.K. Srinivasachariar v. K. Ramanujam 4 Others, 1986 N.L.J. 129.
The revision petitioners sought leave of the High Court to withdraw the C.R.P. 334 of 1987 as well as O.P. 301 of 1985 on the file of the District Court.
If there was any finding in their favour which might get nullified by the withdrawal, in that event, it companyld be said that they would be prejudiced by the withdrawal but that was number the position.
The Executive Officer and the Commissioner who were respondents 14 and 15 in the C.R.P. were number placed in any disad vantageous position.
28.25 lakhs.
For the above reasons the C.R.P. and O.P. were permitted to be withdrawn.
The character of the property whatever it was before the filing of O.P. 301 of 1985, companytinued to be the same and it was number alterd by the withdrawal of the O.P. It was number necessary that a separate petition should be filed under Order 23 Rule 1 and a Memo was sufficient.
9.25 lakhs, which was the amount offered by the tenants.
It was further stated that the Supreme Court ordered the disposal of the C.R.P. on merits and accord ing to law and also dropped certain proceedings taken by the Commis sioner against the hereditary trustees and the department had to abide by the order of the Supreme Court and dropped the said proceedings against the hereditary trustees.
See Thakur Singh v. A. Achuta Rao, 1977 2 APLJ 111 Kedar Nath v. Chandra Karan, AIR 1962 All.
The Commissioner, H.R. C.E. opposed by companynter dated 13.6.91 but the High Court felt that by permitting withdrawal of the CRP and also the OP, numberfinding arrived at by the District Judge in favour of the H.R. C.E. Department was being nullified and that in such an event there companyld be numberobjection to permit the withdrawal of the CRP and the OP.
