Skip to content


A.V. Subbu Chetty Vs. C.V. Munuswamy Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1957)2MLJ161
AppellantA.V. Subbu Chetty
RespondentC.V. Munuswamy Chetty and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....from the deputy commissioner, and on the basis of that certificate a petition was filed before the magistrate for delivery. both before the deputy commissioner and before the magistrate the contention of the present petitioner was that he was not an ex-trustee or ex-officer of the institution and therefore he cannot be ousted from the possession of the property. the deputy commissioner found that the property belonged to the temple and isssued the certificate without recording a finding whether the present petitioner was an ex-trustee. similarly, the magistrate who ordered delivery did not give a finding on any evidence placed before him that the present petitioner was an ex-trustee and therefore liable to be evicted under section 87 of the act. no doubt the magistrate states in his.....
Judgment:

Ramaswami Gounder, J.

1. This is a revision peition filed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 87 of Madras Act XIX of 1951 directing delivery of certain properties in favour of the respondent to this revision. He obtained a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, and on the basis of that certificate a petition was filed before the Magistrate for delivery. Both before the Deputy Commissioner and before the Magistrate the contention of the present petitioner was that he was not an ex-trustee or ex-officer of the institution and therefore he cannot be ousted from the possession of the property. The Deputy Commissioner found that the property belonged to the temple and isssued the certificate without recording a finding whether the present petitioner was an ex-trustee. Similarly, the Magistrate who ordered delivery did not give a finding on any evidence placed before him that the present petitioner was an ex-trustee and therefore liable to be evicted under Section 87 of the Act. No doubt the Magistrate states in his order that the present petitioner was an ex-trustee of the same temple, but there was no evidence for it. Nor does he refer to any evidence on which that conclusion was reached. This is a case where the present petitioner claimed title in his own right. In the absence of any finding that he was an ex-trustee and in that capacity continued in possession, he could not be ousted by a summary order under Section 87 of the Act.

2. This revision is allowed with costs, and the order directing delivery is set aside.


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