DeosOebsnd Seino Quppi \o<2teént joan orb. or Shore, YR gumepsiiQuguorsi semi / Pesce gysoeswii/Asws se\aN60% (4a,Gun) apse Bless, D.Packiaraj Law Firm, 198. PWD Office Road, Nagercoil-2 Mhworain: 3799/2019 6 pnd: 28.09.2022 equi. Gur@dr: expe Siflay - Accord HFooi R.CNo:86227/2021 Do 08.07.2022 - donafledr es Bg mow SmBlorooubgions Gawooslir Fanta, wey pdsd Bowed — SxmdnBle otiTgossfwerosél AOSBomier $1H4 Geiss - Gsm fumes. STE sere pnb gs OM Gum Somivay ogy SEHOSami gn ch Gomanbs unten 2 6966) pio ac Leoendeh Ganbsioner ox Go6l F efor eraty-G1/75 10 107 & GI/10t0 16a agablerdawd crein 295A @amatan SE BBiér comBor bone Bro.oreowwn aebuaiPh.d BOG) O11 aoa aw sum be Box) Deans Kélodins$o Sp6esBonSioond Fumio, w—py oxia.90/20%5/D2 22082018 » Arenas PO UMecer Orth COG srdad AetOUE 0p uflFerooer weIEd BS AeGAGanBerées eGo eeoaous KBuciobprd SpIOdein e kerdhdr Dy) BSDeoAGand suid OLD shod aL) Sp SoH S~BemomBpic0n Gowmd (patrUND 8°) Silay Her 84) Revision Petition prod Gowns unemaus eragad pstisarndd punt Gowgy ainc@uiy wyaias SEOEO sho acLooar shan HoymGoro Bowou | Ape mares SOUUGSlgy. Gopxa Foner wepyeflonear Shp) 011 Berawuhgicow Gewoo! (pobuns, rbendo Oats eBid Opiehibe ptincoar oWdr ay Bor HAGauRUGEIDES Bwgyd »Lepc @ shod OC Lene Shisnon > Blom Garin Gan orbenob ss Sips or Seo rs UOYSIDD, (@b)0. Hest you8 Someaar omexorust , Qowdd -nppave0f (ae. Gist) //2 seiveo.05 569 2 Hanoyliuly // Ceape sent Geneon: eudesnevgy wy ymisay ogy, ue Bae: a 2) cevtiesrooefliumenite &Sleésemray Qousiteflssriburen a, SLL ener serresirGesmulled 3) 6 enomSflayssenitesmreCiarerit 4) 1 6 mamiflanepagst. 5) iBlones,To RArumuga Perumal, ADVOCATE IN THE COURT OF THE AT No: __/202 Between :Plaintiff{(s) /Petitioner(s) And Defendant(s) /Respondent(s) Vakalath executed by : L/ We do hete by appoint and retain you as my / our advocate to appear act and plead for me / us in the above suit, appeal suit, appeal petition and to conduct and prosecute or defend the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of any application for execution if any decree or order passed therein I/ We empower you to appear, act and plead inal miscellaneous proceedings in the above suit or matter till all decrees or orders ae fully satisfied or adjusted and to produce in court my money document or orders are fully on my / ‘our behalf to apply for their and to receive back the same, 1o apply for any obsain copy of all document in record of the proccedings, to draw any moneys that may be payable to me / us in the above suit or matter and I we do further empower you to aeeept on my / out behalf, service of notice of all or any appeals or petitions filed in any court of appeal, reference, or revision with regard tothe said suit or matter, before the disposal of the same inthis court, We also authorise you fo enter into compromise on my / our behalf and to sign any written compromise or compromise petitions in the suit appeal petitions or any other proceedings as the ease may be I We do hereby agree that everything lawfully done or made by you in the conifict of the suit or matter shall be as valid and binding on me / us as if done by mejus in ™ Kine Dae: « Place: Executed in my presence by the pany panes. Accepted Advocate RArunmuga Perumal AdvocateTHE COURT OF THE AT 1202 Between :Plaintiff(s)/ Petitioner(s) And : Defendant(s) / Respondent(s) VAKKALATH FOR: Advocate(s): R.Arumuga Perumal MSNo: 101498 ADDRESS FOR SERVICE D.PACKIYA RAJ LAW FIRM 198, PWD Office Road, Nagereoil-2. Cell Phone: 9442242019 E-Mail: selvaraplaw@gmail.comBEFORE THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (SECRETARY, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CHENNAI REVIEW PETITION No: __/ 2022 Review against an order of The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admin) Department in R.O.C. No. 86227 of 2021-D2 dated. 08.07.2022. (RP 90/2018-D2 on the file of The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department) Between Parvathipuram Udamoottu Dharmam of Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin — 628 215 Rep. by its Thakkar /Executive Officer _ Petitioner/Petitioner/ 2" Respondent And P.Ramaiya @ Rama Respondent / Respondent / Petitioner ADDRESS FOR SERVICE ON THE PETITIONER _/__ 2“? RESPONDEN’ ‘Thakkar, Udamoottu Dharmam of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple / Executive Officer Thiruchendur Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple office at Thiruchendur, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ADDRESS FOR SERVICE ON THE RESPONDENT / PETITIONER: P.Ramaiya @ Rama an, S/o. Late Padmanaban, aged 85 years, Male, Hindu, residing at 236A1/B, Pillayar Coil Street, Vetoornimadam Post, Nagercoil Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. a XL Myaphre eSPETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 H.R. & C.E. ACT 22 OF 1959 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN R.C. No. 86227/2021 D2 in R.P. No: °90/2018 D2 DATED 23.08.2018 The above named petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1. The petitioner humbly submits that the respondent herein filed the revision petition R.P.No:90/2018D2 against the order passed in MP. No:44/2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, Admin Department, Tirunelveli, And the same was allowed by the Commissioner and set aside the order passed in M.P. No. 44 of 2016. Since the order passed by the Commissioner is having apparent error on the face of the record, as such the petitioner herein preferred review under the provisions of CPC and the same also dismissed on the ground that “In the case on hand, my predecessor has taken a view that when pendency of suit to decide the character of the institution, Section 78 cannot be invoked. Whether the decision is correct or wrong, it cannot be reviewed as laid down in the above judgment, The TN H.R. & C.E. Act 1959 is a self contained code. In the said Act, the legislators have given review power to the Government under section 114 A of the Act to review it's order passed under section 114 of the Act. If the legislators had intention to provide review power to the Commissioner, to review his own order passed under section 21 of the Act, they would have provide the same in the Act. itself. But the Act provided for revision of any order passed by the Commissioner under section 114 of the Act to the Government, The H.R. & C.E. Act 1959 is being a Special Act. It has overruling effect of provision of the General Act. Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, the Review Petition filed under section 114 of CPC is not maintainable. Accordingly the prema ——Review Petition is dismissed as not maintainable and also given a direction to file revision before the government under section 114 of the Acts. The petitioner herein had been appointed as Thakkar to the specific endowment Parvathipuram Udamoottu Dharmam as per the order passed by the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department vide 64.0p 5.2. sii. 44422/07/92 preit 15.108. As per the order The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple made detailed enquiries about the encroachment over the endowed properties. The petitioner herein asked the encroacher P.Ramaiya @ Ramaiyan to surrender the possession or furnished the copy of documents to prove their title over the properties on 17.07.2007. On receiving the show cause the appellant / respondent herein had sent a reply stating that, the property absolutely belonging to the Yadhava Community at parvathipuram and the trust Parvathipuram Udamoottu Dharamam will take necessary action. The copy of reply dated 27.08.2007 is filed herewith. The copy of FM Plan for the properties comprised in Survey No.GI ~ 10 to 16 and G1- 75 to 106 of Vadasery Village and printed copy of ‘A’ register for the above mentioned Survey No’s along with encumbrance certificate from 1.1.87 to 25.9.2012 are produced herewith. The settlement register, “A’ register maintain by the revenue department would prove the title vested with the endowment. The petitioner herein initiated 78 proceedings against the appellant / respondent herein as an encroacher and categorically specified the door No. of the building along with area and boundaries enable to identify the property. The leamed Joint Commissioner also issued a show cause to the encroacher, since the appellant / respondent herein had not taken steps to proceed the matter even after ee ¥ Wobre eatcause from the Joint Commissioner dated 7.10.2016. Even after affording several opportunities the appellant / respondent herein not taken any steps to contest the matter and passed an order on merits. As such the Assistant Commissioner, H.R.&CE, Admin, Kanyakumari Division executed the order in M.P. No:44 of 2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C. , Tirunelveli and The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.&C.E removed the appellant / respondent herein from the portion of property belonging to the specific endowment on 13.6.2017 and the same was intimated by the District Assistant Commissioner/executing officer to the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department, Tirunelveli as per Na.Ka No:1485/2016/18 dated 16.6.2017. . It is also submitted that the appellant / respondent herein filed a petition to set aside the order in M.P. No:44/2016 with a petition to condone the delay in filing the application but, without disclosing the eviction the appellant / respondent herein fraudulently preferred the above mentioned revision petition R.P. No:90/2018D2. . The respondent herein claimed his title over the property as his father Mr.Padmanaba Konar purchased the property from one Mr.Krishnan Chettiar as per the registered sale deed and the appellant / respondent herein derived title as per the settlement deed said to have been executed by his father Mr.Padmanaba Konar, And also the appellant contented that without specifying the details of property initiated the action and tampered the town survey register and made a false claim over the property belonging to the appellant / respondent herein. . This Hon’ble authority also allowed the revision application filed by the appellant / respondent herein and set aside the order passed against the appellant / respondent herein in M.P. No:44/2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department, et vy Reree t—‘As the appellant / respondent herein claimed that the suit property was purchased by his father and the Parvathipuram Udamoottu Dharmam is a private Trust, even though the fit person appointed by the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department to the Udamoottu Dharmam was not challenged by anybody. However the original suit O.S. No:230/2016 was filed before the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil for a decree declaring the Trust as private family trust, and the same is pending before the court of law. During the pendency of the suit the person who is claiming that he is the trustee and filed Writ Petition WPMD No. 20275/2021 and the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition and categorically observed and found that the appointment of Thakkar has become final, conforming that the appointment of Thakkar by the Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Department is not been challenged by any one. As such, setting aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in M.P. No:44/2016 on 30.12.2016 is not maintainable on the ground that the civil dispute is, pending regarding the nature of trust. It is also submitted that respondent herein relied the pendency of the original suit O.S. No:230/2016 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. In that suit the plaintiffs therein had admitted that the object of the endowment is described as during the festival in the tamil month of Maasi the Dharmam has to be performed inconnection with the festival at Thiruchendur, Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple. The service are the charity with the religious institution is public nature since, the beneficiaries are the larger public as such, the character of the trust is public one as per section 6 (16) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959. Moreover, if any person filed any suit to declare the trust or religious charity is private one, he ought to have produced any document to show how vibe BOthe charity or trust is created. But, in 0.S.No: 230/2016 the plaintiffs therein have not filed or averred anything about the creation of the trust; as such, the respondent herein has bound and duty to prove not only the trust is private one but also to establish his right over the property as per section 79 (2) of the Tamil Nadu H.R.&C.E. Act 1959. It is also submitted that as per section 21 of the act The Commissioner may call for and examine the records not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit are an appeal to a court is provided by the act 1959. The respondent herein challenging title over the property the respondent herein ought to have filed a suit against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner under 78(4) of the act to establish that the religious institution and endowment has no title over the property. As such, the revision petition R.P,90/2018D2 filed by the respondent herein is not maintainable. But, The Commissioner entertained the matter against the provisions of statutory law as such, the review application is necessitated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order in the revision petition RP. No:90/2018 D2 on the file of the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department, this review petition is filed on the following grounds. GROUNDS ‘That the order passed by the Commissioner in R.P. No:90/2018D2 is against law as well as facts of the case. ii, That the Commissioner failed to consider the maintainability of the revision petition and the powers under section 21 of the act and not considered the documents filed by the petitioner binge ok Vadore Seoell with M.P. No:44/2016., such as appointment of Fit Person passed by The Commissioner, H.R.& C.E Dept. also. iii, That the properties belonging to the Parvathipuram Udamoottu Dharmam comes under section 6(16) of the act is not being considered by the authority while passing the order. iv. That the Commissioner not considered that the original suit filed by individual only after institution of proceedings under section 78 of the act and also failed to consider the plaint is not supported by any document to prove their claim in that suit. v. That the Commissioner failed to consider the section 79(2) of the act and set aside the order passed in M.P. No:44/2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department. Eventhough the Commissioner rightly observed that the appointment of fit person to the specific endowment Udamootu Dharmam is not challenged by anybody and not been considered the suits were filed after initiated the proceedings Under Section 78 of H.R. & C.E Act. vi. The Commissioner passed the order without considering the vii. documents filed by the petitioner herein in M.P. No:44/2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department, Tirunelveli and the erroneous view of law of controversial matter and wrong application of law can be rectified by way of reviewing the order passed by the authority. That the respondent herein not approached appellate Forum with clean hands and also suppressed the material facts that the respondent herein was removed from the property on 13.6.2017 in virtue of the order in M.P. No:44/2016. Since, the appellant obtained an order in R.P. No: 90/2018 D2, by way of playing fraud, as such the question of limitation doesn’t arise.viii. That the Commissioner failed to consider the order in M.P. No:44/2016 was already executed by the competent authority as per law and also failed to consider the respondent herein was evieted from the property on the date of filing the revision petition. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances the petitioner herein prays that the petition be allowed and review the order passed in RP. No:90/2018D2 dated 23.8.2018 and be confirmed the order passed in M.P. No:44/2016 by the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli and to pass such other orders that deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. a yen Petitioner Advocate R.ARUMUGA PERUMALBEFORE THE STATE OF TAMIL, NADU (SECRETARY, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CHENNAI REVIEW PETITION No: _/2022 Review against an order of The Commissioner, H.R. & CE. (Admin) Department in R.O.C. No. 86227 of 2021-D2 dated. 08.07.2022. (RP 90/2018 D2 0 the file of The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E, Department) Between Parvathipuram Udamoottu Dharmam = of Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin — 628 215, Rep. by its Thakkar /Executive Officer: Petitioner/Petitioner/ 2™ Respondent And P.Ramaiya @ Ramaiyan, : Respondent / Respondent / Petitioner CFR. + R.ARUMUGA PERUMAL Advocate MSS. No : 1014/98 D.PACKIARAJ LAW FIRM 198, P.W.D Office Road, Nagercoil, 9442242019 selvaraplaw@gmail.com