Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 103 (MAD)

Sri Ayyappa Baktha Sabha v. The Commissioner & The Deputy Commissioner, H. R. &C. E. Department

1991-02-07

SRINIVASAN

body1991
Judgment :- 1. The court below is in error in dismissing the application for injunction filed by the appellant herein. The suit is one under S. 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Admittedly, the appellant is in management of the temple. There is no allegation of any mismanagement or misappropriation. In the counter filed by the respondents in the court below, the only contention raised was that the Commissioner had decided the matter after considering all the evidence on record and held that the suit institution was a religious institution as defined under S. 6 (18) read with S. 6(20) of the Act. There was no other contention before the court below. 2. The court below has taken a wrong view that the judgment of this Court in Muthuswami Gurukkal v. Ayyasami Thevan 1 would not apply to the facts of this case. In that case it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that in a suit to set aside the order of the Commissioner and declare the plaintiff as hereditary trustee the court can on the plaintiffs application grant an interim injunction restraining the newly appointed trustees from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the temple lands and such an injunction would not amount to stay of the operation of the order of the Commissioner within the meaning of S. 70 of the Act. 3. In this case, as pointed out already, there is no allegation of mismanagement. The plaintiff having been in management of the temple for quite a long time is certainly entitled to continue to be in management until the question is decided by the civil court, in the suit filed by the plaintiff. I am of the view that the balance of convenience is only in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There will be an injunction restraining the respondents or their subordinates or appointees from interfering with the plaintiffs management and possession of the suit temple and its properties till the disposal of the suit. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.