{"id":29527,"date":"2008-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-28T02:26:48","modified_gmt":"2017-05-27T20:56:48","slug":"the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 25\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nA.S.No.1218 of 1989\n\n1.The Commissioner,\n  H.R & C.E, (A) Department,\n  Madras - 34.\n\n2.The Assistant Commissioner,\n  H.R & C.E (A) Department,\n  Madurai.\t\t... Appellants\/Defendants\n\nVs.\n\n1.Vairamuthu (died)\n2.T.Venkatachalam (died)\n3.S.Karuppiah\n4.S.Ravanan\n5.R.Shanmugam (deceased)\n6.Masanakothanar\n7.A.Duraipandiyan\n8.M.Chokkalingam\n9.Muniyandi\n10.Muthu\n\n11.Madurai Velliambala Street Poorveega\n   Mahajana Sangam, represented by its\n   President,\n   Velliambala Street, Madurai.\n\n12.S.Rajendran\n\n13.The Executive Officer,\n   Kudalalagar Devasthanam,\n   Madurai.\n\n14.V.Sundaram\n15.Duraipandiyan\n16.Muthuswami\n17.V.Kannan\n(R.17 is brought on record as L.R of the deceased R.2 as per order of this Court\nin C.M.P.No.5414 of 1996 dated 02.04.1997)\n\n18.V.Muniyandi\t\t... Respondents\/Defendants\n\n(R.18 is brought on record as L.R of the deceased first respondent as per order\nof this Court in C.M.P.Nos.16037 to 16039 of 1998 dated 01.10.2002)\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 96 of the  Code of Civil Procedure, against\nthe judgment and decree dated 30.04.1986 passed in O.S.No.110 of 1983 by the\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Madurai.\n\n!For Appellants ... Mr.So.Paramasivam,\n\t\t    Additional Govt. Pleader\n\n^For Respondents... Mr.E.N.Venkatesan\n\t\t    for R3, R4, R12, R17 & R18\n\t\t    Mr.P.Gopalan for R.13.\n\n\t\t\tNo representation\n\t\t\tfor R6 to R11.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated
\n30.04.1986 passed in O.S.No.110 of 1983 by the learned Subordinate Judge,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according
\nto their litigative status before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiffs as stood
\nexposited from the plaint could be set out thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the hereditary trustees of Madurai
\nVelliambala Street Poorveega   Mahajana Sangam,(hereinafter referred to as
\nTrust) which is admittedly a public religious trust owning temples and
\nproperties as found set out in the plaint schedule and also performing
\ncharitable  activities.  The forefathers of the plaintiffs 1 to 5 founded the
\nsaid trust and in other words, the said trust is both religious and secular in
\ncharacter.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)  Under the religious part of the trust, the sannathies namely,
\nVinayagar, Santhi Veerappasamy and Muniswaran in Velliambala Street, were
\nmaintained and poojas were performed to the deities concerned, in addition to
\nthat, poojas are performed to Mariamman in Teppakulam, Madurai, during the Tamil
\nmonth of Masi and Panguni every year and poojas are conducted to Lord Subramania
\nof Thirupparankundram during the Tamil month of Karthigai every year.  These
\nreligious activities have been carried out ever since 1909.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The meetings are being held for the effective implementation of the
\nTrust.  One such meeting was held on 11th Masi Keelaga (1909) where the member
\nof that Sangam decided to carry on with the Trust in the manner as found set out
\nin paragraph No.6 of the plaint, which is extracted hereunder for ready
\nreference:\n<\/p>\n
\t“6. The trust has to be managed by three communities Thevar, Servai and
\nPillaimar and among these communities, trustees have to be selected and these
\npersons have to hold office till their life time and hereditarily and by long
\nusage and custom the office of trusteeship has become hereditary and the
\nsuccession to whose office devolves by hereditary right and is also regulated by
\nusage.  The office of the trusteeship are such Nattanmai, Kanakkar, Thandal,
\nAthikari and Maniam, these posts have been held hereditarily and in succession
\never since the year 1909.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. In order to make it much more efficient another Mahajanam meeting was
\nheld on 21.02.1954 wherein it was resolved to draw two persons from Thevars, two
\nfrom Servais and one from Pillaimar and five more persons were co-opted, to help
\nthe hereditary trustees Nattanmai, Kanakkar, Thandal, Athikari and Maniam.  the
\ntrusteeship post of Nattanmai was held by the 1st plaintiff’s forefather ever
\nsince the year 1909.  The trusteeship post of Kanakkar was held by the
\nforefather of the 2nd plaintiff.  The trusteeship post of Thandal was held by
\nthe forefathers of 3rd plaintiff, and the trusteeship post of Athikari was held
\nby the forefather of the 4th plaintiff and the trusteeship post of Maniam was
\nheld by the forefathers of the 5th plaintiff. From time immemorial the trust is
\nbeing managed as aforesaid as hereditary trustees by custom and usage which has
\nassumed the force of law and therefore the office of the trusteeships of Madurai
\nVelliambala Theru Poorviga Mahajana Trust’ are hereditary.
\n\tThe plaintiffs 1 to 10 and another person M.Ramasamy Servai now dead in
\ntheir capacity as trustees of Madurai Velliambala Theru Poorviga Mahajana Trust
\nfiled an application in O.A.No.126 of 1975 on the file of Deputy Commissioner,
\nH.R & C.E, Madurai, for a declaration that office’ of trusteeships of the said
\ntrust Madurai Velliambala Theru Poorviga Mahajana Trust are hereditary within
\nthe meaning of Sec.6(11) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959.”\t(emphasis supplied.)<\/p>\n
\t4. During the year 1973, the said Sangam was came to be registered as a
\nSociety under the Societies Registration Act and the Registration number
\nassigned to it was 26\/1973.  The relevant rules and by-laws were also framed and
\ngot registered.  Subsequently, O.A.No.127 of 1975 was filed by the plaintiffs 1
\nto 10 herein before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department, Madurai to
\nhave a scheme framed for the administration of the affairs of the Trust and
\nthere was also a prayer in it that the hereditary trusteeship as found set out
\nsupra in the plaint, had to be recognised by the H.R.&C.E Department while
\nformulating the said scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. However, on erroneous appreciation of facts and application of law, the
\nDeputy Commissioner dismissed the said O.A.No.127 of 1975 vide order dated
\n10.02.1978.  As against such order, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner
\nconcerned who confirmed the order of the lower authority erroneously. The
\nauthority under the H.R&C.E.Department, appointed a fit person to take charge of
\nMadurai Velliambala Street Poorveega   Mahajana Sangam and such steps taken by
\nthe authorities under the H.R&C.E Department are untenable.  Hence, the
\nplaintiffs filed the suit with the following main prayers:
\n\t“(a) Cancelling the order dated 31.07.1982 in A.P.No.56 of 1979 on the
\nfile of the 1st defendant herein, by declaring that office of the trusteeships
\nnamely, ‘Nattanmai, Kanakkar, Thandal, Athikari and Maniam’ of the ‘Madurai
\nVelliambala Theru Poorviga Mahajana Trust’ are hereditary.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) and granting consequential reliefs of injunction restraining the 3rd
\ndefendant herein from taking charge of Madurai Velliambala Theru Poorviga
\nMahajana Trust.”\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Denying and refuting, the allegations\/ averments in the plaint, the
\nfirst defendant filed the written statement which was adopted by the second
\ndefendant, justifying the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the
\nconfirmation order passed by the Commissioner in the appeal concerned, in
\naddition to setting out the following averments:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe allegations in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint are untenable and
\nmisleading.  The trust was maintained by the elected trustees and therefore,
\nthere cannot be any hereditary trustees.  The Deputy Commissioner issued a draft
\nscheme dated 10.02.1978 under the H.R&C.E Act. Pending settlement of scheme, the
\nsecond defendant by his order dated 16.11.1978 in Roc.O.A.No.127\/1975\/C1,
\nappointed the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Koodalagar Temple, Madurai, as a
\nfit person under Section 64(4) of the Act to look after the affairs of the
\ninstitution. As such, the suit has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The third defendant filed the written statement, almost reiterating the
\nessence of the contentions as found set out in the written statement of the
\nfirst defendant.  The defendants 4 to 6 filed memo adopting the written
\nstatement of the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree of
\nthe trial Court, the defendants 1 and 2 filed this appeal on the grounds inter
\nalia thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe judgment and the decree of the trial Court, are erroneous.  The
\nplaintiffs 1 to 5 are not the hereditary trustees.  The lower Court failed to
\nappreciate that the said registered society was not cited as party to the
\nproceedings.  Since the trustees are elected at the General Body Meeting, there
\ncould not be any hereditary trusteeship in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 5.
\nIgnoring the documentary evidence, the trial Court simply decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The points for consideration are:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 were justified in understanding as
\nthough the plaintiffs 1 to 5 are elected members of the said Sangam and
\nconsequently, justified in holding that the elected members cannot be the
\nhereditary trustees?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Whether the plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the hereditary trustees of the said
\nSangam?\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the
\ntrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would clearly highlight
\nthe fact that it relied on Ex.A.3, the minutes book of the plaintiffs’
\ninstitution wherein it is found clearly recorded even as early as on 21.02.1954
\nthat as many as five persons viz., Mariappan Thevar, Thenvasaga Anandhar,
\nChokkathevar, Sangili Servai and Shanmugam Servai were recognised as the
\nhereditary trustees.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to highlight that the
\nfirst plaintiff herein, is none but the son of Mariappa Thevar referred to
\nsupra.  The second plaintiff as per the plaint averments, happened to be the
\ndescendant of his respective forefathers, occupying that post of hereditary
\ntrustee.  The third plaintiff is the son of Chokka Thevar.  The fourth plaintiff
\nis the son of Sangili Servai referred to supra and the fifth plaintiff is the
\nsame person referred to in Ex.A.3.  During the pendency of the litigation, some
\nof the hereditary trustees died and their respective legal representatives
\nimpleaded.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In Ex.A.3, the minutes book, at page bearing No.18, it is found stated
\nthat the people concerned of that locality recognised the hereditary trusteeship
\nand over and above that, they wanted only the committee members to be elected,
\nas the period of the committee members got expired.  At page bearing No.9 of
\nEx.A.3, it is found clearly spelt out that apart from the said five hereditary
\ntrustees, five other committee members were there and only for such persons, the
\nelections ere conducted periodically.  The trial Court therefore correctly
\nobserved in paragraph No.7 of its judgment that Ex.A.3 refers to the hereditary
\ntrustees.  In Ex.A.2, the counter foils of the rent receipts, it is found that
\none and the same person namely Thenvasaga Pillai signed as the accountant for a
\npretty long time.  In fact, Mariappa Thevar, one other hereditary trustee also
\nsigned Ex.A.2 in various pages.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Subsequently, Ex.A.4, the memorandum of association and the by-laws
\nconcerned, which emerged during the year 1973, would highlight that the said
\ninstitution got itself registered under the Societies Registration Act and the
\nRegistrar of Firms assigned the Register number as 26 of 1973 to it.  In that,
\nthose five persons referred to as the hereditary trustees in Ex.A.3, were
\nrecognised as hereditary trustees and consequently, they are having the right to
\ncontinue in office.  No election at all is contemplated for electing such
\nhereditary trustees.  The best persons who could speak about the hereditary
\ntrusteeship,are the members themselves of that Sangam (Trust) and they
\nmanifested their minds reflecting the realities which existed during 1954 as in
\nEx.A.3 and subsequently also including the one during the year 1973.  The
\nevidence on record clearly demonstrates that those hereditary trustees in fact
\nhave been continuously occupying these posts without  any let or hindrance.
\nThere is nothing to prove that at any time any other person other than
\nhereditary trustees occupied such posts.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned Government Pleader drawing the attention of this Court to
\nthe definition of the term ‘hereditary trustee’ as found set out in Section
\n6(11) of the H.R&C.E Act, would develop his argument that the plaintiffs 1 to 5
\ndo not come within the purview of Section 6(11) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
\nReligious and Charitable Endowments Act.  Hence, it is just and necessary  to
\nextract Section 6(11) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
\nEndowments Act, 1959, thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 6(11). ‘hereditary trustee’ means the trustee of a religious
\ninstitution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is
\nregulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as
\nsuch scheme of succession is in force;”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t        (emphasis supplied.)\n<\/p>\n
\t18. A mere perusal of it, would unambiguously indicate that relating to a
\nreligious institution if the succession to the office devolves by the hereditary
\nright or regulated by usage, then that would be sufficient to hold that a member
\nis a hereditary trustee.  Here, those five posts are apparently and obviously,
\nclearly and candidly convey that those are not mere insignificant posts, but
\nreally key posts for managing and administering the Sangam (Trust) and those
\nfive persons occupying it, have been occupying by sheer succession by stepping
\ninto the shoes of their respective forefathers.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The trial Court’s judgment and the above discussion would clearly
\nhighlight that even in the year 1954, it is found spelt out in Ex.A.3, that
\nthose five persons recognised holding five distinct posts and those posts were
\ntreated as held hereditarily.  Ex.A.3, per se, an ancient document and a mere
\nperusal of it would highlight that continuously the minutes of the Sangam were
\nrecorded ever since 1954 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in all fairness would submit
\nthat the plaintiffs could not adduce evidence as to what happened in the year
\n1909, the year in which that public institution emerged.  However, he would
\nsubmit that from the evidence available, it could rightly be inferred that five
\npersons whose names are found set out at page No.9 of Ex.A.3, have been holding
\nthose five posts in that public institution as hereditary trustees and that
\ntheir forefathers were occupying their respective posts.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. My above discussion also would clearly reveal that out of those five
\npersons referred to at page No.9 in Ex.A.3, the fifth plaintiff is still alive
\nand others are descendants of their respective trustees whose names are found in
\nEx.A.2.  No contrary evidence has been adduced to prove that those posts were
\noccupied by some other persons.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The trial Court also in paragraph No.8 referred to the other exhibits
\nmarked on the side of the plaintiffs wherein the plaintiffs projected themselves
\nas hereditary trustees of the said institution.  Whereas the learned Government
\nPleader drawing the attention of this Court to Ex.A.10, would develop his
\nargument that even though Ex.A.10 emerged during the year 1962, those five
\npersons were referred to, only as ‘Theru Nirvagastharkal” and not as hereditary
\ntrustees.  One fact is clear that even in the year 1954, as revealed by Ex.A.3,
\nthose five persons were referred to as permanent trustees and even in the year
\n1962, only those five persons were found set out as trustees as in Ex.A.3 and
\nthat itself is indicative of the fact that no other person is allowed to occupy
\nsuch posts.  In continuation of the same, in the year 1973, those five persons
\nonly figured in the memorandum of association.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. As such, it is clear that ever since 1954 only one set of persons are
\noccupying the posts and on the death of one of the persons of his respective
\nlegal descendant only occupies the post.  In these circumstances, a fortiori,
\nthose persons are occuping the posts hereditarily wherefore they could rightly
\nbe termed as hereditary trustees and there could be no embargo for them to
\noccupy such posts hereditarily.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. I would like to refer to the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Subramania Pillai v. Trustees, Temple Group reported in 1977 (II) MLJ
\n77, wherein it was held on the point that even though the trust may be a public
\ntrust, the hereditary trustee could be appointed among the family members
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The unreported decision of the Honourable Apex Court in M.S.V.Raja &
\nAnother v. Seeni Thevar & Others<\/a> in Civil Appeal No.2417 of 1992, wherein the
\nsame point set out supra has been posited by the Honourable Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. The precedent of this Court in Devaki v. The Hindu Religious and
\nCharitable Endowments Department<\/a> reported in 1997 II MLJ 331, could fruitfully
\nbe referred to.  Certain excerpts from it, could be extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“21. The learned Counsel for the appellant cited the decision reported in
\nRanganatha Pillai v. The Commissioner for H.R&C.E, (1979) 2 M.L.J 23 wherein
\nS.Mohan,J., as he then was, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The definition of ‘hereditary trustee’ in Sec.6, Clause(ii) of the Tamil
\nNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is very wide in its
\namplitude.  Hereditary trustee is not to be understood as from father to son or
\nson to his son.  Having regard to the comprehensive definition, it is enough if
\na usage is established for a long number of years evidencing exercise of
\nhereditary trusteeship of a particular temple or temples by members of a family.
\nIn the instant case, there was no gainsaying  that the plaintiff’s family alone
\nexercised such right.  There were very valuable documents in which description
\nwas found that the predecessors of the plaintiff’s  were the trustees.  No
\nobjection was taken to the genealogical tree and the trusteeship had been
\ncontinuously exercised by the members of the plaintiff’s family without any
\nobjection or hindrance.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The above judgment, in our opinion, is applicable to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case on hand.  In this case, it is clearly established that
\nfor a long number of years (generations) the appellant and her ancestors have
\nexercised their hereditary trusteeship in this particular temple.  In the
\ninstant case, there is no other evidence to show that except the plaintiff and
\nher ancestors, anybody else has exercised any such right.  Very valuable
\ndocuments viz., Exs.A.3 to A.5 have been filed by the appellant.  Ex.A.3
\ndescribes Veerabadra Pillai son of Muthu Pillai as the trustee of the suit
\ntemple.  It is also stated that the property has been gifted for daily pooja and
\nneivethyam for their family deity Angalaparmeswari.  There is no reason for us
\nto reject the said ancient document which confers right on the appellant.  The
\ntrusteeship has been continuously exercised by the members of the appellant’s
\nfamily without any objection or hindrance  from any other source.  It must,
\ntherefore, be held that the trusteeship of the suit temple was hereditary in the
\nfamily of the appellant.  In similar matters, this Court has taken the view that
\nin respect of a temple when the members of the family for three generations are
\nmanaging the affairs of the temple, it must be held that the trusteeship was
\nhereditary in the family.  In our opinion, the above ratio squarely applies to
\nthe case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In the decision reported in The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of
\nMadras,<\/a> (1967) I MLJ 119, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the Inam
\nFair Register incorporated an official declaration which was the result of
\ndetailed inquiries and all evidence collected in respect of each inam was
\ncarefully sifted and considered before any conclusion was reached or declared
\nand in the absence of positive and proper evidence to the contrary, such
\ndeclaration must possess supreme importance.  In the instant case, Ex.A.4, the
\nInam Fair Register, which could not be filed before the 1st respondent, was
\nfiled before the trial Court and the entries therein would show that the suit
\ntemple is an ancient temple and grant has also been made and conferred on the
\ntemple at the time of settlement of minor inams.  As already noticed, there is
\nno positive and proper evidence to the contrary. As such, the declaration made
\nunder Ex.A.4, as indicated by the Supreme Court, must possess supreme
\nimportance.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The finding of the learned single Judge that there is absolutely no
\nevidence worthy of acceptance is wholly unacceptable and against the concrete
\ndocumentary evidence available in this case.  We have  already pointed out that
\nthere is no evidence at all on the side of the Department to disprove the case
\nof the appellant.  The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent and convincing.  P.W.2
\nis very categorica in his evidence that the members of the family of the
\nappellant alone have been the hereditary trustees of the suit temple.  According
\nto him, he has been performing the poojas for the past fifty years.  There is no
\nrhyme or reason to reject the evidence of a Poojari, who has been functioning as
\nsuch for the last fifty years in the very same temple.  The evidence of D.W.1 is
\nworthless.  We are of the view that if the office of trusteeship of a particular
\nreligious institution has been hereditary hereditary in a particular family, it
\nwould constitute hereditary trusteeship.  The trial Court having found that the
\npredecessors of the appellant functioned as trustees, had erred in dismissing
\nthe same.”\n<\/p>\n
\t26. The learned Government Pleader would argue that there should be
\nevidence that for three generations at least such hereditary trusteeship was
\nadhered to for the Court to recognise hereditary trusteeship.  I am of the
\nconsidered view that when Section 6(11) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
\nCharitable Endowments Act itself does not contemplate as three generations
\nformula, the Government Pleader cannot be heard to contend so.  No doubt, in the
\nprecedent cited supra, there is reference to one other decision and the facts of
\nwhich would refer to three generations, but as a rub of thumb, it cannot be
\nadopted in all cases.  What is highlighted in the said precedent is that there
\nshould be usage and adherence hereditarily relating to trusteeship and that
\nalone can be taken as the ratio decidendi of that decision, but not the one that
\ntheir trusteeship held as though for holding hereditary trusteeship, there
\nshould necessarily be evidence relating to hereditary trusteeship for three
\ngenerations.  However, I do not hold that in this case, there is no three
\ngenerations of hereditary succession to those five officers, but what would hold
\nis that such three generation formula is not a sine quo non to countenance
\nhereditary trusteeship relating to an office.  The other precedents referred to
\nin the excerpt supra lends support to the case of the plaintiffs and not the
\ndefendants and it is quite obvious.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. The perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the
\nCommissioner would clearly expose as to how they fell into error in assuming as
\nthough for those five posts, the trustees are elected, but that is not the case
\nat all as already discussed supra.  Hence, in this view of the matter, I could
\nsee no infirmity in the decision rendered by the trial Court.  However, the
\ntrial Court after upholding the hereditary trusteeship of the plaintiffs 1 to 5,
\nshould have ordered for a scheme to be formulated by the authorities under the
\nH.R&C.E Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. It is an admitted fact that O.A.No.127 of 1975 filed by the plaintiffs
\nherein before the Deputy Commissioner itself, was one under Section 64(1) of the
\nAct for getting a scheme framed relating to that institution giving due
\nrecognition to the hereditary trusteeship of those five persons viz, the
\nplaintiffs 1 to 5.  However, in the prayer of the plaint, they sought for
\ndeclaration and injunction restraining the authorities under the H.R&C.E Act
\nfrom interfering with the affairs of the institution.  Wherefore, the plaintiffs
\nto that much extent, were not justified in praying for a blanket injunction
\nabsolutely as against the authorities under the H.R&C.E Act.  Accordingly, to
\nthat much extent, the judgment and decree of the trial Court should be modified.
\nThe ultimate decree shall be as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the hereditary trustees of the institution
\nnamely Madurai Velliambala Street Poorveega Mahajana Sangam.  The authorities
\nunder the H.R&C.E Act shall frame a scheme under Section 64 of the act giving
\ndue recognition to the plaintiffs 1 to 5 as hereditary trustees.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid limited
\nextent only.  The parties  shall bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Subordinate Judge, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.1218 of 1989 1.The Commissioner, H.R & C.E, (A) Department, Madras – 34. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R & C.E (A) Department, Madurai. … Appellants\/Defendants Vs. 1.Vairamuthu (died) […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 - 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\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-27T20:56:48+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-27T20:56:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3814,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-27T20:56:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 - 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\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-27T20:56:48+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-27T20:56:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008"},"wordCount":3814,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008","name":"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-27T20:56:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-vairamuthu-died-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner vs Vairamuthu (Died) on 25 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/29527","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=29527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}