AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This Second Appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 8.9.2008 rendered in A.S. No. 9 of 2008, on
the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, in confirming the decree and judgment dated 28.8.2007 made in O.S. No. 205 of 2005 on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. Heard both sides.
A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the second appellant/defendant. Whereupon, the defendant resisted the suit. The issues were
framed and the trial was conducted. During the trial on the side of the plaintiff, P.W. 1 was examined and the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-6 were
marked and on the defendant''s side, D.W. 1 was examined and the documents Exhibits B-1 to B-19 were marked. Ultimately, the trial Court
ordered eviction. As against which, the first appeal was filed by the defendant for nothing but to be dismissed. Impugning the concurrent findings of
both the for a below, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds.
My predecessor on hearing both sides formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law:
Whether the appellant is protected under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act, 1921?
Whether the plaintiff is exempted from the provisions of the said Act?
The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Courts below failed to take into account that the tenants are protected under
the City Tenants Protection Act.
Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the plaintiff being a Public Trust is exempted from the Chennai City Tenants
Protection Act, 1921.
Both substantial questions of law are inter-linked and interwoven, entwined and intertwined with each other.
I would like to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921:
1(3) This Act shall apply,
***
Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to tenancies of land owned-
****
(f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion.
A mere running of the eye over it would connote and exemplify that the immovable properties belonging to the said public trust are exempted
from the purview of the said The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. It has to be seen as to whether the plaintiffs Trust is a public trust or
not. This Court in similar matter decided on 7.6.2007 in S.A. No. 365 of 2006 held that the Trust concerned is the public trust. I would like to
refer to those details once again herein.
Here, Exhibit A-1 would speak to the contrary. An excerpt from Exhibit A-1, would run thus:
The present committee shall cease to hold office from the date of the formation of a new committee of Managers and shall hand over all
documents papers and accounts as well as possession of movable and immovable properties to the newly elected members except the movable
appurtenant to the worship of the deities in the temple in item No. (1) and in the possession of the Hindu Managers.
(emphasis supplied)
With reference to the election of Two Hindu Managers for the Hindu Panikkar Community, referred to in Para I (apart from the election of six
managers provided for in para 7 and it shall be done by the Hindu Panikkars alone.)
Out of the gross income charges, taxes, kists, etc., of the properties and their repairs shall be must first. Then an amount of Rs., which
represents 1/5 of the net income i.e., gross income less the kist and the house tax.) subject to a maximum of Rs. 400/- shall be ear marked as a
first charge out of the income of the properties for the Pooja and worship in item 1, paid out every year to the Hindu Managers referred to in
paragraph 10. The Balance shall be applied for such secular purposes as may be determined by the community at its meetings and the purpose
shall be carried by the committee of Managers. The said six persons as managers shall collect and disburse and otherwise expend the rent and
other income from the properties as well as from the community for the purposes defined by the community.
(emphasis supplied)
Defendants 1 to 4 and sub other defendants who were in management of suit properties shall be liable to account to this Court for 12 years
prior to the date of suit for the respective collection and expenditure made by them till the date of the new committee that is to function takes
charge.
If any alteration, variation or change in respect of this scheme is found necessary and if any difficulty is felt in working out this scheme, any
member of the community (whether Christian or Hindu) may apply to this Court for suitable directions. This Court after notice to the parties on
record shall after hearing the objections, pass suitable orders thereon. The application shall be made in this suit itself.
As regards the costs, the taxed cost of the plaintiffs and defendants by this Court shall be recoverable from out of the income of the common
properties.
The parties may apply by means of a separate application for appointment of a Commissioner for taking accounts.
''E'' Schedule
Miscellaneous Secular & Religious Expenses:
Repairs to the immovable properties.
Municipal taxes for the immovable properties assessed to Municipal areas.
Expenditure relating to the up keep of the Burial ground of the Hindu Panikkars.
Feeding on occasions of the Panikkar gatherings.
Maintenance of the Nadavanam and Pillayar temples in item of a Schedule.
As such, the entire reading of Exhibit A.1 and more specifically, the clauses extracted above, would show that the income from the properties
of the Trust shall be utilised for performing Poojas and for maintaining the temple including the celebrations of various Hindu festivals. Over and
above that, there is a clause also to the effect that the Panikkars should be fed out of those income from the properties. As such, the entire corpus
has been dedicated only for religious and charitable purpose.
The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is no specification to the effect that the income should be utilised for charitable
purposes, for which the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that performance of Poojas would demonstrate that it is for religious
purpose and the clause to the effect that income should be utilised for feeding the Panikkars, would include the charitable purposes also. The entire
reading of Exhibit A-1 would reveal that at one point of time in 1940''s, there arose disputes between the Hindu Panikkars and the Christians and
thereupon only, compromise scheme decree arose.
The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it is only a compromise decree. Such a submission cannot be countenanced for the
reason that the said compromise decree in 1940, emerged at a time, when this dispute was not in the offing. It is a scheme decree passed on
compromise and as such, it could rightly be taken as the basic document evidencing the scope of trust and the nature of the Trust and there cannot
be any second thought over it.
Hence, in this view of the matter, this Court, could rightly take the plaintiff as a trust for religious as well as charitable purposes. One other
decision has been cited on the side of the appellants in Sri Krishnavilas Bajanai Madam and Others Vs. The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.
Department, The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) and R. Krishnamurthi . An excerpt from it, would run thus:
When there is no evidence that at any point of time, any member of the public had participated in the management or even had the right of
worshipping or participating as a matter of right in any function, the plaintiff institution, established for the purpose of doing bajanais and for doing
poojas for some days, is to be considered as a private Trust only and not as public charitable institution.
Out of context, the aforesaid decision is cited. In the case referred to above, the facts are entirely different so to say, when there is no evidence
to show that any member of the public had the right of participating in the management or worship; such an institution cannot be termed as public
trust, but it should be taken only as a private trust. Here, the facts are apparently and obviously different.
Here, my above discussion would show that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and it is quite
obvious as in this case, Exhibit A-1 clearly and categorically highlights the purpose of the Trust.
Hence, it is clear that the suit property of the Trust enjoys the exemption contemplated in the said Act itself. Accordingly, the substantive questions
of law are answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant and as such, I could see no merit in this second appeal. Wherefore, this
second appeal is dismissed. No costs.