w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M.S. Ganesan & Others v/s V. Appa Rao & Others

    O.S.A.Nos. 318 & 319 of 2012, M.P.Nos. 1 to 6 of 2012 in O.S.A.No. 318 of 2012 & M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 in O.S.A.No. 319 of 2012

    Decided On, 25 September 2012

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. VIMALA

    For the Appellants: M.S. Mani, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, R. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for E.J. Ayyappan, R4, A.V. Radhakrishnan, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Original Side Appeals are filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the orders passed on 27.07.2012 made in O.A.No. 438 of 2012 in C.S.No. 336 of 2012 and Application No. 2408 of 2012 in O.A.No. 438 of 2012 in C.S.No. 336 of 2012 respectively on the file of Original side, of this Court.

Common Judgment: (P. Jyothimani, J.)

The plaintiffs are the appellants. These appeals are preferred against the orders of the learned single Judge passed on 27.07.2012 in O.A.No. 438 of 2012 in C.S.No. 336 of 2012 and Application No. 2408 of 2012 in O.A.No. 43

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of 2012 in C.S.No. 336 of 2012 respctively, praying for an order of interim injunction against defendants 1 to 3 from maintaining and operating the accounts in respect of the third appellant/Trust viz., Sri. Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Public Charitable Trust, which is maintaining the second appellant temple viz., Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple.2. Admittedly, the first appellant’s ancestors have created the Trust, but however, it is on record that on an application filed by the first applicant as well as respondents 1 to 3 under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as H.R & C.E. Act), the Joint Commissioner has framed a Scheme in respect of the temple viz., Sri. Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple, Vellalar Street, Mogappair, Chennai-600 37 in O.A.No. 8 of 2009 by order dated 21.07.2010.3. Under the Scheme, three trustees are entitled to pass a resolution for removing any of the trustees. It is the case of respondents 1 to 3 that by virtue of the powers conferred under the Scheme, respondents 1 to 3, by a resolution, removed the first appellant from the trusteeship of the third respondent/trust, which is maintaining the second appellant. In these circumstances, while considering the application filed by the plaintiffs for interim injunction, the learned Judge, by order dated 27.07.2012, has permitted respondents 1 to 3, who are defendants 1 to 3, to operate the bank accounts with defendants 4 to 8 and also directed respondents 1 to 3 to submit proper accounts before this Court till the disposal of the suit once in a month preferably on the first working day of every month.4. This order is assailed by the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs 3 and 4 are different trusts and the third plaintiff/trust is maintaining the temple and the fourth plaintiff/trust is totally different and that was not the subject matter of the application filed under Section 64(1) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. While so, the impugned order of the learned Judge in permitting defendants 1 to 3 to operate the accounts, cannot be extended to the accounts in respect of fourth plaintiff/trust, which is exclusively under the first plaintiff’s control.5. On a reference to the Government Order issued as per the orders of the Joint Commissioner of the H.R. & C.E., in the Government Gazette, the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., has passed the statutory order in O.A.No. 8 of 2009 and framed a scheme in respect of maintenance of Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple, in which, the first plaintiff himself is a party along with defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, if the first plaintiff has got any grievance over the Scheme passed by the competent authority, it is for him to work out his remedy in the suit under the provisions of the H.R. & C.E., Act. In any event, the Scheme having been framed is only in respect of the third appellant/third plaintiff viz., Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Public Charitable Trust. It goes without saying that the impugned order of the learned Judge to operate the accounts jointly with defendants 4 to 8 can be only restricted in respect of appellants 3 and 2 viz., Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Public Charitable Trust and Sri. Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple, and it cannot be extended to the fourth plaintiff viz., Sri Santhana Lakshmi Charitable trust, which was continued to be maintained by the Trustees including the first appellant.6. In view of the same, the impugned order of the learned Judge stands modified as follows:(i) Defendants 1 to 3 are at liberty to operate the bank accounts along with defendants 4 to 8 only in respect of plaintiffs 2 and 3 alone and submit proper accounts before this Court from the date of the order viz., 27.07.2012, passed by the learned single Judge once in a month preferably on the first working day of every month;(ii) In respect of fourth plaintiff/trust viz., Sri ┬áSanthana Lakshmi Charitable Trust, there are two accounts which are produced before this Court. One account is maintained by the first plaintiff in Canara Bank, Mogappair West Branch (A/c. No. 2915101003237) with effect from 22.6.2012 and as on 11.8.2012 there is a balance amount of Rs.12,58,876/- lying to the credit of the fourth plaintiff/trust in the account maintained by the first plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 are also maintaining an account in respect of the fourth plaintiff/trust with the Union Bank of India, Mogappair, Ambattur Industrial Estate Road (A/c. No. 504402010000432) with effect from 5.3.2012, in which as on 14.9.2012 there is a balance amount Rs.60,605.90 lying to the credit of the fourth plaintiff/trust. Inasmuch as both the first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are claiming to maintain the fourth plaintiff/trust, both the accounts shall stand frozen and the respective bank shall be intimated to that effect and the parties concerned shall not operate the said accounts till the disposal of the suit. It is also made clear that all other accounts which are standing in the name of the fourth plaintiff/trust stand frozen and there is no question of rendering account in respect of the fourth plaintiff/trust by any party;(iii) If the first plaintiff is affected by the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Act, it is open to him to file necessary suit in the manner known to law; and(iv) It will be open to the plaintiffs as well as defendants to participate in all the poojas to be conducted by the archakars during the Puratasi month.These original side appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
OR
Also