Court : Chennai
..... - (1) no person, on or after the commencement of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments (amendment) act, 1996 (tamil nadu act 39 of 1996) shall occupy, otherwise than by lawful possession, any property belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment. ..... in all these matters the challenge is with regard to constitutional validity of sections 78, 79(3) and 109 of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 (act 22 of 1959) (in short the hr & ce act) as amended by tamil nadu act 39 of 1996 as well as by amended act 28 of 2003 as ultra vires the constitution of india. 3. ..... rammohan, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner in w.p.no.20487 of 2010 would contend that the procedure contemplated under sections 78 and 79 in chapter vii relates to encroachments and, since the possession of the petitioner by the department is admitted, instead of issuing notice under section 78(2), the procedure contemplated under section 34 should have been followed. ..... raghupathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner in w.p.no.10173 of 2010, submitted that the bar under section 79(3) to approach the civil court in grant of injunction against the order of the joint commissioner is bad and should be interfered with. 6. mr.t.l. ..... the appellants and the petitioner in w.p.no.20487 of 2010 claim to be the tenants / lessees in occupation of the land belonging to the temple concerned for the past several years. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... 2010 - in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73 of the tamil nadu court fees and suits valuation act, 1955 (tamil nadu act xiv of 1955), the government of tamil nadu hereby reduces to a maximum of rupees one hundred, the fee payable under the said act in respect of the suits filed by religious institutions for restoration of immovable properties and for declaration of title over the immovable properties of temples under the control of the hindu religious and charitable endowments ..... these civil miscellaneous appeal and civil revision petitions are filed against the order of injunction granted by the trial court against the defendants / appellant / revision petitioners not to alienate their properties, till the disposal of the suit, ordering impleadment of the temple as a party to the suit and amending the particulars in respect of court fee in accordance with g.o.ms.no.363 dated 09.04.2010, which contemplates that the hindu religious and charitable endowments department is liable to pay only rs.100/- as a ..... 9.however, while considering the case for amendment as well as impleading, the question as to whether the respondent / trust represented by hr & ce department is a party or not, the trial court has allowed the impleading petition on the ground that the respondent / trust itself has earlier approached the civil court by filing a suit in o.s.no.566 of 2007 and that suit is again for a declaration and admittedly, the same is also pending before the additional .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... the sub registrar, registration office, sulur, coimbatore district reported in 2007 (3) ctc 513 has also made an amendment to the registration act by tamil nadu act 2 of 2009 and empowered to refuse to register in respect of lands relating to tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowment board.4. ..... the contention of the petitioner was that the respondents have no right to refuse to register the document on the ground that the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments board had stayed the registration of the sale deed and the writ petition was pending before this court.3.on notice from this court, on behalf of the 4th respondent, assistant commissioner, hr & ce department, a counter affidavit dated 25.4.2012 has been filed. ..... petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the sub registrar, namgiripettai, wherein the petitioner was informed that since the matters are pending before the court in w.p.no.17500 of 2010, no action can be taken on the document.2. ..... it is also brought to the notice of this court that w.p.no.17500 of 2010 filed by one vijayakumar was allowed by this court on 5.1.2012 on the ground that g.o.ms.no.150, commercial tax department dated 22.9.2000 was withdrawn by the government as it cannot be traceable to the power conferred under section 22-a of the registration act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... by the amended act (tamil nadu act 2/1971) made to the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, all the services rendered on the basis of the legal heirship or mirasi right were abolished ..... the case adjourned 15.04.2010 12.04.2010 counsel present and sought adjournment present 03.05.2010 26.04.2010 present present. ..... statement of witnesses filed 23.09.2010 signed in the case records absent absent 19.10.2010 14.10.2010 absent absent 09.11.2010 vaikunda ekadasi festival 04.11.2010 absent absent 25.02.2011 21.02.2011 absent ..... it was also stated that the trustee board resolution no.158, dated 27.5.2010 was passed to retire lakshmi narasimha bhattar who had attained the age of 60 years ..... respondent was cross examined 06.03.2010 05.02.2010 absent as senior counsel was away, sought for adjournment 11.03.2010 09.03.2010 adjournment was sought through phone ..... as counsel was out of station, sought for adjournment present 24.07.2010 17.07.2010 absent absent 19.08.2010 known in person present present. ..... the commissioner, hr&ce by his order dated 27.4.2010 held that since the petitioner was not impleaded by the joint commissioner, his order was set aside ..... respondent was cross examined 25.08.2010 known in person absent present ..... counsel present 19.03.2010 16.03.2010 advocate boycott. ..... sought for adjournment through phone 01.07.2010 24.06.2010 absent. ..... as senior counsel was away, sought for adjournment present 16.02.2010 27.11.2009 present present. ..... 15.09.2010 08.09.2010 present .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... encroachment notice issued under section 78 of the hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, is under challenge. ..... validity of section 78, 79(3) and 109 of the tamil nadu h.r. & c.e. ..... state of tamil nadu reported in 2009(1) tncj 319 madras upheld the validity of the ..... act, 1959, as amended by act 28 of 2003 was challenged in a batch of cases before this ..... placed persons challenged the notice issued under section 78 of the act and was dismissed by this court in w.p.no.13906 of 2008 etc ..... the issue raised in the present writ petition is on the same line and i am in respectful agreement with the decision rendered by the learned single judge in the earlier writ petitions ..... since the act provides for self contained remedy and that the provisions of the act were also upheld by this court, the writ petitions ..... is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, call for the records and quash the proceedings of the third respondent in his villupuram mandalam arivippu enn 85/08/e2/dated 06.01.2010 signed on 1.2.2012.2. ..... .manjula baskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, mr.s.kandasamy, learned special government pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and mr.k.chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.3. ..... is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of certiorari, call for the records and quash the proceedings of the third respondent in his villupuram mandalam arivippu enn 85/08/e2/dated 06.01.2010 signed on 1.2.2012.r.sudhakar, j.order1. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... special government pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that arulmighu pandi muneeswarar temple, melamadai village, madurai is under the administration and supervisory control of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments department and as a result, the same has been included in the list published under section 46 of the act. ..... as defined under the hindu religious and charitable endowments act, (hereinafter referred to as the act), the word excepted means a temple ..... (i)mr.v.sitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that by virtue of an old order passed by the hindu religious and charitable endowments board in o.a.no.459/1933 dated 05.09.1935, the subject matter of arulmighu pandi muneeswarar temple, situated at melamadai in melur taluk, madurai district has been described ..... of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition;(iv) nothing in this chapter shall apply to a daughter married before the date of the commencement of the hindu succession (tamil nadu amendment)act, 1989;a close reading of clause (iv) clearly shows that the daughter married before the date of commencement of the hindu succession (tamil nadu amendment)act, 1989 is not ..... raja ratinam (2010 (5) ctc 51) wherein it has been held in paragraph 28 ..... of 2010 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... following are the legal submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions:- (i) firstly, the joint commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowment department , madurai cannot adjudicate the inter se disputes under section 151 c.p.c read with 63(e) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowment act,1959. ..... se dispute cannot be adjudicated before the first respondent, under section 151 c.p.c read with 63(e) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowment act 1959. ..... it is by now well-settled that the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner under section 57 (h) of the hindu religious and charitable endowments act of 1951 corresponding to section 63(b) of the tamil nadu act xxii of 1959 is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee ..... petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned in the writ petition, he has an alternative remedy either to implead himself in the original application preferred by the private respondents and to vacate the interim application or to file an appeal before the commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowment department, chennai, under section 69 of the act. ..... respondents 5 & 6, installed the temple in question in the temple located at foothill in the year 2010 with the permission of the hindu religious and charitable endowment department for which there was no objection raised from the akkaripatti village. ..... (tamil nadu act 22/1959) and amended act 39/ .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... 16.at this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that as per g.o.ms.no.363 home (courts-via, 09.04.2010).which was published on 08.12.2010, it was specifically mentioned that the governor of tamil nadu hereby reduces to a maximum of rupees one hundred, the fee payable under the said act in respect of the suits filed by religious institutions for restoration of immovable properties and for declaration of title over the immovable properties of temples under the control of the hindu religious and charitable endowments department. ..... 3.learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner filed an application in i.a.no.88 of 2013 under order vi rule 17 of c.p.c.to amend the plaint, in which, the plaintiff has sought for three amendments, that is to substitute the secretary name e.palani to the sangam in both the short and long cause titles and also incorporating one portion in respect of payment of court fee in para 16(a) of the plaint. ..... and directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint regarding market value of the suit property and to pay the additional court fee, against which, both the plaintiff and defendant preferred the revisions in c.r.p.nos.3824 and 4052 of 2012, which were dismissed by this court confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in i.a.no.339 of 2012, against which, the revision petitioner preferred s.l.p.nos.11193 and 11194 of 2013 before the apex court. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... when the deputy commissioner of hindu religious and charitable endowments, initiated proceedings in the year 1982, under section 64(5) of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959, for the modification of the scheme which was settled earlier by the madras high court itself, the same came to be challenged. ..... 55.in state of tamil nadu vs.k.shyam sunder, (2011) 8 scc737the question that came up for consideration before the supreme court was about the striking down of section 3 of the tamil nadu uniform system of school education (amendment) act, 2011 by the high court. ..... it was contended before the supreme court that the 2011 amendment act had the effect of bringing back section 14 of the 2010 act which was earlier declared ultra vires by the high court. ..... after referring to the explanation inserted under section 15(1) by way of the wakf (amendment) act, 1984 to the wakf act, 1954 and also after referring to the explanation under section 32(1) under the 1995 act, the division bench of the andhra pradesh high court, held in paragraph 29 of the judgment that the schemes framed under sections 92 and 93 of the code of civil procedure are in no way affected on account of the enactment of 1954 act. ..... an attempt was made under amendment act 69 of 1984 to repeal sections 92 and 93 of cpc by adding item 3-a to sub-section (1) of section 69 of the 1954 act. ..... but the provisions of the wakf (amendment) act, 1984 could not be enforced, on account of very strong opposition. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... .32. chapter vii of the tamil nadu hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 specifically speaks about "encroachments ..... . after extracting sections 78 and 79, in b.shaji's case (2010(3) ctc 851), the learned single judge held that "since a specific provision has been made for the eviction of the encroacher, no suit can be directly instituted in any court of law except and and in conformity with the provisions of the act as per section 108 of tamil nadu h.r ..... . secondly, section 78 was inserted by amendment under tamil nadu act 39 of 1996, which came into force on 9.12.1996 and the suit - c.s.no.1486 of 1988 was filed way back in 1988 and section 78 inserted by amending act 39 of 1996 is not applicable.26 ..... parties.47. in our considered view, in b.shaji's case (2010(3) ctc 851) , the learned single judge has not correctly interpreted chapter vii containing sections 78, 79 and 80 and the learned single judge has not correctly laid down the law on the ejectment suits filed by the temples and the judgment in b.shaji's case (2010(3) ctc 851) would adversely effect the pending ejectment suits filed by the temple and it would have the affect of paralysing the proper administration .....
Tag this Judgment!