Judgment : In M.P.No.4 of 1984 dated 16.7.1986, The Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Coimbatore-18 has allowed the application filed by one K. Chinnasamy and two others under Sec.101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22/1959), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Once C.S. Subba Iyer was the respondent in the said miscellaneous petition. During the enquiry, both the petitioners as well as the respondent were called absent and after perusing the records, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order allowing the application issuing a certificate as contemplated under Sec.101 of the Act. It appears that the respondent C.S.Subba Iyer had also filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Hind; Religous and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Coimbatore in R.P.No.36 of 1986 which was also dismissed. 2. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Selliandi Amman and Mariamman Temple, Perode Village, Erode Taluk has filed a petition under Sec.101 of the Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.M.P.No.708 of 1993. In the said petition, he had prayed for orders directing counter petitioners to effect the delivery of the schedule article to the petitioner therein or to enforce delivery of the articles through process of court and to pass suitable orders. The present two petitioners were impleaded as counter petitioners. They are none other than the wife and son of the said C.S.Subba Iyer against whom the certificate was issued originally under Sec.101 of the Act, by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 11.3.1996 in C.M.P.No.708 of 1993 the present revision has been filed by the two counter petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would inter alia, contend that the certificate having been issued in the name of certain persons specifically thereunder, cannot be executed by the Magistrate as against the persons who have not been named in the certificate. Admittedly, the certificate was issued in the name of the petitioners Thiru K.Chinnasamy and two others and in the said proceedings, only the name of of the C.S.Subba Iyer appeared as contesting respondent. However, the miscellaneous petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, discloses the name of Mrs.Parvathi Ammal and Mr.Sivasamy as counter petitioners. In other words, the said two individuals are not “eo nominee” parties before the proceedings, either before the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner subsequently on appeal. However, the miscellaneous petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, discloses the name of Mrs.Parvathi Ammal and Mr.Sivasamy as counter petitioners. In other words, the said two individuals are not “eo nominee” parties before the proceedings, either before the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner subsequently on appeal. The learned counsel relies on the judgment reported in Ponnusamy v. Nallamuthu Ponnusamy v. Nallamuthu., (1996)2 MLJ. 371 wherein it is observed as follows: “Apart from the Full Bench decision that I have already referred to, we have the decision of Ramaswami Gounder, J., in Subbu Chetti v. Munuswamy Chetty Subbu Chetti v. Munuswamy Chetty , (1957)2 MLJ. 161 which has not been dissented from, to my knowledge, and which rightly lays down, if I may say so with respect, that the person in possession must be found by the Commissioner to be a person against whom an order can be made under Sec.101. Otherwise, treating the certificate as a decree, it will be void because even, on the face of it, it is essentially defective in the sense that it does not find that the party against whom it purports to be made comes within the scope of Sec.101 of the Act.” 5. In this case, admittedly, the Department has not been taken any action to implead the legal representatives, in the proceedings before any order can be passed under Sec.101 of the Act. 6. The power and jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Sec.101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act cannot entitle him to execute the certificate as against the persons who were not parties to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is always open to the Department to take such steps as may be necessary to prosecute the legal proceedings as against the legal representatives of the person against whom the certificate has been issued, which procedure has not been followed and the application before the Magistrate has been filed against persons who were not parties before the different forums of the Department. 7. 7. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned defect, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate has to be set aside and the Department is also given liberty to take such steps as may be necessary to implead the persons concerned either as legal representatives or the successors-in-interest of the parties to the proceedings and to take further proceedings as against them. It is also made clear that the locus standi of the Executive Officer of the temple having filed the petition shall not be questioned by the petitioner herein having regard to the fact that the Executive Officer by a process of law has succeeded to the office of the trusteeship. This fact cannot be disputed. 8. Subject to the above observations, the above revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the Crl.M.P.No. 1115 of 1996 is also closed.