Skip to content


S.V. Kailasanatha Ayyar Vs. M. Nallasivam Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad361
AppellantS.V. Kailasanatha Ayyar
RespondentM. Nallasivam Pillai and anr.
Excerpt:
.....rule 14(b), clause (iv) explantion (1); - appointment to state police service - failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him - effect? - held, the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the application form is filled up, is fatal. his subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. in any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is..........raised before me is that the petitioner had no notice of the application and the learned district judge passed an order ex parte without sending notice to the petitioner or getting any explanation from him. the respondent was only appointed as an additional trustee of the temple and at best he would be only entitled to joint possession with the petitioner. the order, as drawn up, directs the petitioner to hand over charge of sri krishnaswami temple and other minor temples attached to it with all the properties belonging to them. i consider the order illegal because it was passed without giving notice to the person who was to be bound by it. it is an elementary principle of law that no order should be passed which prejudices a person without giving him an opportunity to show cause.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application by a trustee of Sri Krishnaswami Temple at Ambasamudram to set aside an order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly passed under Section 78, Madras Religious Endowments Act, 1927. The first contention raised before me is that the petitioner had no notice of the application and the learned District Judge passed an order ex parte without sending notice to the petitioner or getting any explanation from him. The respondent was only appointed as an additional trustee of the temple and at best he would be only entitled to joint possession with the petitioner. The order, as drawn up, directs the petitioner to hand over charge of Sri Krishnaswami Temple and other minor temples attached to it with all the properties belonging to them. I consider the order illegal because it was passed without giving notice to the person who was to be bound by it. It is an elementary principle of law that no order should be passed which prejudices a person without giving him an opportunity to show cause against it. I therefore set aside the order of the District Judge, direct him to restore the application to his file and dispose of it according to law after giving notice to the petitioner. The petitioner will have the costs of this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //