Sri Muttathurayan Temple vs V.P.

Sundaram on 20 August, 2014

Madras High Court

Sri Muttathurayan Temple vs V.P. Sundaram on 20 August, 2014

oIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.08.2014

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

WRIT APPEAL NO.2065 OF 2013

AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2013

Sri Muttathurayan Temple

Vellikinaru
Rep. by its Fit Person
Coimbatore North Taluk
Coimbatore District. ... Appellant

Vs

1. V.P. Sundaram

2. The Settlement Officer

Office of the land Commissioner
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3. P.Yasoda
4. Thulasiammal
5. M. Devammal
6. K. Arulkumar
7. Visalachi
8. V. Ponnammal
9. Gnanasubramaniam
10. M. Armugham
11. J. Thulasimani
12. K. Maragatham
13. K. Muralidharan
14. K. Geethamani
15. M. Nachimuthu Gounder
16. V.P.Palaniswami
17. S. Visalatchi
18. Dhanammal @ Dhanalakshmi

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/20010333/ 1

 Sri Muttathurayan Temple vs V.P. Sundaram on 20 August, 2014

19. V.P.Murugesan
20. Nagaraj
21. Muthulakshmi
22. M. Kuppathal
23. S. Maragatham
24. S. Ramathal
25. Saraswathi
26. S. Somasundaram
27. S. Kittiswamy
28. V.V.Palanisamy
29. V.C.Shanmugam
30. V.M. Kalisami ..Respondents

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order made in W.
For Appellant : Mr.R.T.Doraisamy

For Respondents : Mr.P. Muthukrishnan

for Mr.R.N.Amarnath for R1 and 28 to 30

Ms. A. Sri Jayanthi

Spl. Govt. Pleader for R.2

R.3 to R.27 - given up

******

J U D G E M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J) This writ appeal is filed
against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.659 of 2010 dated 12.3.2012.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent in the above writ petition. The first respondent herein as
the writ petitioner filed the same challenging the order dated 9.6.2008 passed in CFR
No.47732/2006 in C.M.A.No.27/2008 before the Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge is that the Tribunal ought not
to have numbered the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in view of the fact that the same was filed
challenging the proceedings of the Settlement Officer dated 29.06.1968, nearly after 40 years.
Therefore it was contended that after such a long delay the miscellaneous appeal filed by the first
respondent in the writ petitioner ought not to have been numbered and the same should have been
rejected on the reasoning that it is barred by limitation.

4. The learned Single Judge found that the appeal was filed without filing any petition for condoning
the delay and therefore numbering of the same cannot be sustained. The learned Judge has also
pointed out that under Clause (3) of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 the Government may prefer an appeal against the order of the
Settlement Officer, within one year from the date of the decision and any person aggrieved over such
decision has to file an appeal within three months. Proviso to Clause 3 of Section 11 of the Act
contemplates that the Tribunal is vested with the discretion to allow further time, however, not
exceeding two months for filing such appeal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after setting aside
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/20010333/ 2
 Sri Muttathurayan Temple vs V.P. Sundaram on 20 August, 2014

the order of the Tribunal dated 9.6.2008 in numbering the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, given liberty
to the first respondent/appellant herein to file an application to condone the delay in preferring the
appeal and directed to issue notice if the same filed. The writ petitioner was also given liberty to
raise the point of limitation as contemplated under clause 3 of Section 11 of the above said Act.

5. The present appeal is filed by the first respondent in the writ petition contending that in view of
Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, there is no
necessity for filing any condone delay petition as the Limitation Act is not applicable for recovery of
properties of religious institutions.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. It is not in dispute that the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore challenging the proceedings of the Settlement Officer dated
29.9.1968 after a period of 40 years. The Tribunal without considering the delay, has simply
numbered the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as C.M.A.No.27 of 2008. Therefore, the learned Judge
after setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal has only given liberty to the appellant herein to
file an application to condone the delay and issue notice to the first respondent if such application is
filed. The learned Judge has also given liberty to the first respondent herein to contest the said
application by raising the point of limitation as provided under clause 3 of Section 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

8. We are of the considered view that the learned Judge has protected the interest of both parties by
giving liberty as stated supra. Therefore, it is for them to agitate the matter before the Tribunal by
filing appropriate application. The appellant while preferring such application for condonation of
delay has to implead all the necessary parties both in appeal as well as condone delay petition and
make such appeal before the Tribunal. If any such application is filed it is for the Tribunal to go into
the same and pass orders on the same in accordance with law, also by taking into account of the
provisions with regard to limitation in preferring the N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.

AND K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J Tr appeal. Thus, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge.

9. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observation. Consequently, the connected MP is
closed. No costs.

Index : Yes/No (N.P.V., J.) (K.R.C.B.J)

Internet : Yes/No 20.08.2014
Tr/

To

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/20010333/ 3

 Sri Muttathurayan Temple vs V.P. Sundaram on 20 August, 2014

The Settlement Officer

Office of the land Commissioner
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

W.A.No.2065 of 2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/20010333/ 4