High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Padai Kaatha Samy Idol v. Chinnapillai - S.A. No.1059 of 2002  RD-TN 458 (11 July 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
The Honourable Mr.Justice A.K. RAJAN
S.A. No.1059 of 2002
Padai Kaatha Samy Idol
rep. by its hereditary
Dharmakartha Velayutham .. Appellant vs.
Chinnapillai .. Respondent Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1999 made in A.S. No.188 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Babu
Second Appeal filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the 'Dharma kartha' of the plaintiff idol. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1927 one lady by name Ammakannu Ammal executed a Inam settlement deed in favour of Pitchai Pillai for the purpose of maintaining Paadai Kaatha Samy Temple. According to the plaintiff, Velayutha Udayar was the ' Dharma kartha' in the year 1984. Prior to that, his father was the ' Dharma kartha'. According to the defendant, the said Pitchai Pillai in whose name the 'inam' was executed sold the property to one Chellamuthu Pillai in the year 1935 and from that day onwards, Chellamuthu Pillai and his successors are enjoying the property as trust property.
3. Even according to the plaint, the father of Velayutha Udayar is still alive. It is not known when he was removed as Trustee and why Velayutha Udayar was appointed as Trustee. Therefore, the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that Velayutha Udayar himself appointed as Trustee only in order to get back this property; There is no evidence as to who appointed the father of the Velayutha Udayar as Trustee; In the year 1935, the property was sold and it was being enjoyed continuously for more than 50 years, as the suit was filed in the year 1988; Even under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, any property vested in others before 1951 can be challenged; Further under Section 96 of the Limitation Act, the limitation is 12 years in the case of transfer of property by previous owner for valuable consideration. The present suit has been filed long after 12 years and therefore, it is not maintainable.
4. Admittedly, the property was settled by Ammakannu Ammal only in favour of Pitchai Pillai with a direction to use the income for the maintenance of the temple. The property was not settled in the name of the idol, which is the plaintiff in this case. If at all an obligation imposed on Pitchai Pillai has been violated by him. Inasmuch as the property was not the property of the plaintiff idol, the suit as filed by the idol is not maintainable. Hence, the decision of the Courts below in dismissing the suit is legal and valid.
5. The finding given by both the Courts below is not illegal and there is no point of law in this Second Appeal, I deem it fit to dismiss the Second Appeal and accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 11-7-2002
1. The Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.
2. The District Munsif, Ariyalur.
A.K. RAJAN, J.,
S.A. No.1059 of 2002;
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.