{"id":176111,"date":"1989-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989"},"modified":"2017-07-02T22:55:10","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T17:25:10","slug":"b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989","title":{"rendered":"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2102, \t\t 1989 SCR Supl. (1)\t1<\/div>\n
Author: M Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nB.K.C. MURUGA KONAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nV. SETHA KONE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/09\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 2102\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (1)\t1\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 612 JT 1989 (3)\t671\n 1989 SCALE  (2)531\n\n\nACT:\n    Tamil  Nadu\t Hindu Religious and  Charitable  Endowments\nAct,  1959---Sections 6(20) and 108--Suit for  rendition  of\nAccounts  in  respect  of  \"Temple\"--Private  Temple--Public\nreligious endowment--What is--Suit whether maintainable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    This is defendant's appeal by Special Leave. Respondents\n1  to  5 alongwith one other person filed  a  representative\nsuit   on  behalf  of  themselves  and\tother\tmembers\t  of\nThousand--Yadhava   Community  against\tthe  appellant\t No.\n1--Defendant  for  an  order directing him  to\trender\ttrue\naccounts  of the management of the properties of  the  Thou-\nsand--Yadhava  Community  including  the  Sri  Ramasami\t Sri\nNavneetha Krishnasami Devasthanam Temples and their  proper-\nties  and pay to them the amount ascertained as\t payable  on\nsuch rendition of accounts. The appellant was the Trustee of\nthe said temples. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was\nthat the said temples were private religious trusts and\t the\nappellant  as trustee had committed several acts of  misman-\nagement in respect of the properties.\n    The\t appellant  defendant denied those  allegations\t and\ncontended  that the suit as framed was not  maintainable  in\nview of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and\nCharitable Endowments Act, 1959.\n    The\t Trial\tCourt dismissed the suit. It held  that\t the\nsaid temples were not private temples belonging to the\tsaid\ncommunity,  and\t that both the temples were covered  by\t the\nprovisions of section 6(20) of the Act, and as such the suit\nwas  barred by the provisions of the Act and thus not  main-\ntainable. The plaintiffs preferred appeal to the High  Court\nagainst the order of the Trial Court. The High Court allowed\nthe  plaintiffs\t appeal\t and  passed  a\t preliminary  decree\nagainst\t the  appellant\t No. 1-defendant  for  rendition  of\naccounts  while dismissing the suit in other  respects.\t The\nHigh  Court  took the view that a party\t seeking  relief  of\naccounting  cannot approach the Deputy Commissioner  or\t any\nother authority under the Act and hence the Civil Court\t was\nnot barred either expressly or by necessary implication from\nentertaining the suit so far\n2\nas  it\twas for accounting. However the High Court  did\t not\ndecide\tthe question as to whether the Temples were  private\ntemples or could be regarded as public religious endowments.\nDefendant No. 1 filed the appeal, by special leave.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  There  is no doubt that in respect  of  a  public\ntrust, beneficiaries as a class can file a suit against\t the\nTrustee for rendition of accounts subject to the bar imposed\nby Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. [5H; 6A]\n    Chapter  VIII of the Act has no bearing on the  question\nof  the\t liability of a trustee to render  accounts  to\t the\nbeneficiaries  as a group or class and it does\tnot  provide\nfor  determining  or deciding a dispute in respect  of\tsuch\nrendition of accounts and hence, Section 108 of the said Act\ndoes not bar a suit like the one filed by Respondent No.  1.\n[6H; 7A-B]\n    Sri\t Vedagiri  Laxmi Narasimha Swami  Temple  v.  Induru\nPattabhirami Reddy,<\/a> [1967] 1 SCR 280, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1045  of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.1972 of the Madras
\nHigh Court in Appeal No. 549 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
K. Ramkumar for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    K. Raj Choudhary, B.R. Agarwal and Ms. Sushma  Manchanda
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    KANIA,  J. This is an appeal by Special Leave against  a
\njudgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court deliv-
\nered on February 7, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondents\t Nos.  1 to 5 along with  one  other  person
\nfiled  a  representative suit on behalf\t of  themselves\t and
\nother members of the Thousand-Yadhava Community residing  in
\nRamayanachavadi\t Street\t and the other\tadjoining  lanes  in
\nNorth  Masi  Street,  Madurai Town  and\t adjoining  villages
\nagainst original appellant No. 1 herein, for an order
\n3<\/span>
\ndirecting  him\tto render true and proper  accounts  of\t the
\nmanagement of the properties of the Thousand-Yadhava  Commu-
\nnity  including the Sri Ramasami Sri Navaneetha\t Krishnasami
\nDevasthanam  Temples and their properties and to pay to\t the
\nplaintiffs the amount ascertained as payable on such  rendi-
\ntion  of accounts with interest and other reliefs.  Original
\nappellant No. 1 herein was the trustee of the said  temples.
\nHe died during the pendency of the appeal before us and\t his
\ntwo  sons have been joined as appellants Nos. 1(i) to  1(ii)
\nin this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    We propose to refer to the parties by their descriptions
\nin the suit for the sake of convenience.\n<\/p>\n
    Very  briefly stated, according to the  plaintiffs,\t the
\nsaid temples were private religious trusts and the defendant
\nhad  committed several acts of mismanagement in\t respect  of
\nthe  properties\t of the said trusts.  The  defendant  denied
\nthese  allegations. He, inter alia, contended that the\tsuit
\nas framed was not maintainable in law, in view of the provi-
\nsions  of  the\tTamil Nadu Hindu  Religious  and  Charitable
\nEndowments  Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the\tsaid
\nAct.”).\t The  Trial Court dismissed the suit on\t the  ground
\nthat  it was barred by the provisions of the said  Act.\t The
\nTrial  Court  held that the said temples  were\tnot  private
\ntemples belonging to the aforesaid community, namely,  Thou-
\nsand-Yadhava  Community. The Trial Court took the view\tthat
\nthe Thousand-Yadhava Community must be regarded as a section
\nof  the\t Hindu Community and in that case both\tthe  temples
\nwould  be covered by the provisions of section 6(20) of\t the
\nsaid Act. Sub-section (20) of section 6 defines the  meaning
\nof  the word ‘temple’ for the purpose of the said  Act\tand,
\nvery briefly stated, lays down that it is a place used as  a
\nplace  of public religious worship and dedicated to  or\t for
\nthe  benefit of the Hindu Community or any section  thereof,
\nas a place of public religious worship. The Trial Court took
\nthe  view  that,  although this question  could\t be  decided
\nprimarily only by the Endowment Board and Civil Court has no
\njurisdiction  to go into it, it could go into that  question
\nincidentally  as  was done by the Trial Court. As  a  conse-
\nquence\tof  this conclusion, the Trial Court held  that\t the
\nsuit  was barred by the provisions of the said Act  and\t was
\nnot maintainable at law. The plaintiffs preferred an  appeal
\nagainst\t this decision to the Madras High Court. A  Division
\nBench  of the Madras High Court after examining\t the  provi-
\nsions  of  the said Act held that the Trial  Court  was\t not
\nright in dismissing the suit in toto even with regard to the
\nrelief of accounting. The High Court held that defendant No.
\n1 (original appellant before us) admitted that he was elect-
\ned  in 1949 as the trustee of the said temples at a  meeting
\nof the members of the community. The
\n4<\/span>
\nsaid  Act  does not contain any provision for  rendition  of
\naccounts.  A party seeking relief of accounting\t cannot\t ap-
\nproach the Deputy Commissioner or any other authority  under
\nthe said Act and hence, the Civil Court is not barred either
\nexpressly  or by necessary implication from  entertaining  a
\nsuit  in  so  far as it was for the  relief  of\t accounting.
\nFollowing upon this reasoning, the court allowed the  appeal
\nand passed a preliminary decree against defendant No. 1\t for
\nrendition of accounts while dismissing the suit in all other
\nrespects.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High  Court did not decide as to whether  the\tsaid
\ntemples were private temples or could be regarded as  public
\nreligious  endowments falling within the definition  of\t the
\nterm ‘temple’ as defined in sub-section (20) of section 6 of
\nthe said Act. Defendant No. 1 along with some others filed a
\npetition for Special Leave before this Court and by an order
\ndated  April  24, 1972. Special Leave was  granted  by\tthis
\nCourt but was confined to the question whether it was within
\nthe power of the Civil Court to direct accounts to be  taken
\nwithout deciding the question whether the temple is a public
\ntemple or a private temple.\n<\/p>\n
    At\tthe hearing of the appeal before us, Mr. Ram  Kumar,
\nlearned Counsel for the appellants conceded that if the said
\ntemples were private temples as contended by the  plaintiffs
\nin the said suit, the defendant as the trustee was liable to
\nrender accounts of his management of the said trust to\tthem
\nas beneficiaries. It was, however, submitted by him that  in
\ncase  the  said temples were not private  temples  but\twere
\ntemples\t as defined in sub-section (20) of section 6 of\t the
\nsaid Act to which we have already referred earlier, the suit
\nfor  rendition of accounts was not maintainable in  view  of
\nthe provisions of the said Act and hence, it was not open to
\nthe  High  Court to have passed a decree  for  rendition  of
\naccounts  without  deciding whether the\t said  temples\twere
\npublic temples or private temples. He drew our attention  to
\nsub-section (20) of section 6 of the said Act which  defines
\nthe  term ‘temple’ for the purpose of the said Act. We\thave
\nalready\t referred to that definition of the said term  ‘tem-
\nple’  earlier.\tSuffice\t it to state here  that\t under\tthat
\ndefinition only public temples of the nature stated  earlier
\ncould be regarded as temples. Sub-section (17) of section  6
\ndefines the term ‘religious endowment’ or ‘endowment’ and it
\nis sufficient for the purpose of this appeal to note that it
\nmeans  property\t belonging to or given or  endowed  for\t the
\nsupport of maths or temples for the purposes set out  there-
\nin. Section 108 of the said Act runs as follows.\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “108.  Bar of suits in respect of\t administra-
\n\t      tion  or management of religious\tinstitutions
\n\t      etc.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       No suit or other legal proceeding  in
\n\t      respect of the administration or management of
\n\t      a religious institution or any other matter or
\n\t      dispute  for  determining\t or  deciding  which
\n\t      provision is made in this Act shall be  insti-
\n\t      tuted in any. Court of law, except under,\t and
\n\t      in  confirmity  with, the provisions  of\tthis
\n\t      Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 63  of\t the said Act deals with the  power  of\t the
\nDeputy\tCommissioner to hold inquiries into and\t decide\t the
\ndisputes and matters set out therein. It inter alia  confers
\non  him the power to hold inquiries in connection  with\t the
\nproperty and funds of the temples within the meaning of\t the
\nsaid  Act. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner,  an
\nappeal is provided under section 69 to the Commissioner\t and
\nsection\t 70  lays down that a person aggrieved by  an  order
\npassed\tby the Commissioner under the provisions set out  in
\nclauses\t (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) thereof can file  a
\nsuit  in a Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of section  70\tpro-
\nvides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against the
\ndecree\tof the Civil Court under sub-section (1) of  section\n<\/p>\n
70.  Chapter  VIII of the said Act deals with the  topic  of
\nBudgets,  Accounts  and Audit. Section 87 of  the  said\t Act
\nprovides  that\tthe trustee of every  religious\t institution
\nshall  keep regular accounts of all receipts  and  disburse-
\nments and provides that these accounts have to be audited by
\nthe  auditors  appointed in a prescribed manner.  After\t the
\naudit is completed, the auditor is required under section 88
\nto  send a report to the Commissioner or the Deputy  Commis-
\nsioner\tor the Assistant Commissioner as  provided  therein.
\nSection 90 deals with the rectification of defects disclosed
\nin the audit and order of surcharge against trustee etc.  It
\nis.interesting\tto note that sub-section (6) of\t section  90
\nprovides  that\tan  order of surcharge\tunder  this  section
\nagainst a trustee shall not bar a suit for accounts  against
\nhim  except in respect of the matters finally dealt with  by
\nsuch order.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe appeal before us a perusal of the  plaint  shows
\nthat  the  suit was filed not on behalf\t of  any  particular
\nbeneficiary  or\t group\tof beneficiaries but  by  a  certain
\npersons\t claiming  to belong to the  beneficiary  community,
\nnamely,\t the Thousand-Yadhava Community, and the suit was  a
\nrepresentative\tsuit instituted on behalf of themselves\t and
\nother  members of the community. There is no doubt  that  in
\nrespect of a public trust, beneficiaries as a class can file
\na  suit against the trustee for rendition of accounts,\tsub-
\nject to the bar imposed by.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was with
\na  view\t to  prevent’ reckless\tand  harassing\tsuits  being
\nbrought\t against the trustees of public trusts that  section
\n92  was\t enacted requiring that two or more  persons  having
\ninterest  in the suit could institute such a suit only\twith
\nthe consent in writing of the Advocate General. However,  we
\nfind that in view of the provisions of section 5 of the said
\nAct, sections 92 and 93 of tile Code of Civil Procedure have
\nceased to apply to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow-
\nments  in  the\tconcerned State. Hence\tthe’  bar,  if\tany,
\nto .the institution of a suit like this has to be found only
\nin the provisions of the Act. We have already set out earli-
\ner  the provisions of section 108 of the said Act  which  is
\nanalogous  to section 93 of the Madras Hindu  Religious\t and
\nCharitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to  as
\n“the said Act of 1951”) which was repealed by the said\tAct.
\nMany of the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the said
\nAct to which we have already referred earlier are similar to
\nthe powers conferred by section 57 of the said Act of  1951.
\nSections  63  and  64 of the said Act which  deal  with\t the
\npowers\tof the Deputy Commissioner are in pari materia\twith
\nthe  provisions\t of sections 57 and 58 of the  said  Act  of
\n1951.  Section 90(6) of the said Act provides that an  order
\nof  surcharge  under this section made against\tthe  trustee
\nshall not bar a suit for accounts against him and we find  a
\nsimilar\t provision in sub-section (7) of section 74  of\t the
\nsaid  Act of 1951. The schemes of the two Acts\tare  largely
\nsimilar.  In  Sri Vedagiri Laxmi Narasimha Swami  Temple  v.
\nInduru Pattabhirami Reddy,<\/a> [1967] 1 SCR 280 a question arose
\nbefore this Court as to whether a suit by the present  trus-
\ntee  against the previous trustee of a temple was barred  by
\nreason\tof  the provisions of the said Act of 1951.  It\t was
\nargued\tin  that case that the Act in  question\t provides  a
\ncomplete  machinery for deciding disputes in regard  to\t ac-
\ncounts\tand,  therefore, no suit for accounting\t against  an
\nex-trustee  can\t be  filed at all in a\tCivil  Court.  After
\nanalysing the scheme of the said Act of 1951, and the provi-
\nsions  of the relevant sections of that Act, which  we\thave
\nreferred to earlier that argument was rejected by a Division
\nBench of this Court. It was pointed out by Subba Rao,  C.J.,
\nwho  delivered the judgment of this Court that the scope  of
\nthe auditor’s investigation is limited. It is only an effec-
\ntive substitute for the trustee himself furnishing an audit-
\ned account. It was held that Chapter VII of the said Act  of
\n1951 only provides for a strict supervision of the financial
\nside of the administration. Chapter VII does not provide for
\ndetermining a dispute in respect of rendition of account and
\ndoes  not bar a suit for that relief. Section 74(7)  of\t the
\nsaid  Act  of 1951 was not a bar to the\t maintainability  of
\nsuch  a suit. The same reasoning applies to the case  before
\nus.  In\t our opinion, Chapter VIII of the said\tAct  has  no
\nbearing on the ques-\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
tion of the liability of a trustee to render accounts to the
\nbeneficiaries  as a group or class and it does\tnot  provide
\nfor  determining  or deciding a dispute in respect  of\tsuch
\nrendition of accounts and hence, section 108 of the said Act
\ndoes  not bar a suit like the one filed by respondent No.  1
\nbefore\tus. We are of the view that the High Court  did\t not
\ncommit\tany error in passing a decree for rendition  of\t ac-
\ncounts without deciding the question whether a temple was  a
\npublic or private trust.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result, the appeal fails and is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts  fixed at Rs.2,000 to be divided between the  respond-
\nents equally.\n<\/p>\n
Y.  Lal\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n8<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2102, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 1 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: B.K.C. MURUGA KONAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: V. SETHA KONE & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-02T17:25:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T17:25:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\"},\"wordCount\":2183,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\",\"name\":\"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T17:25:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-02T17:25:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989","datePublished":"1989-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T17:25:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989"},"wordCount":2183,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989","name":"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T17:25:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-k-c-muruga-konar-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-setha-kone-ors-on-1-september-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.K.C. Muruga Konar (Dead) By Lrs. … vs V. Setha Kone & Ors on 1 September, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}