Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

Failure to Maintain Accurate Property Registers and Unauthorized Leasing Justify Removal: High Court of Madras Upholds Removal of Hereditary Trustee for Breaches of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice N. Anand Venkatesh affirms government order removing G. Prem Anand from trusteeship of Sri Vengeeswarar, Azhagar Perumal, and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam.

The High Court of Madras has upheld the removal of G. Prem Anand from his position as the hereditary trustee of the Sri Vengeeswarar, Azhagar Perumal, and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam. The decision by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasizes the importance of compliance with statutory requirements under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act, particularly in the preparation and maintenance of property registers and the leasing of temple properties.

  1. Prem Anand was appointed as the hereditary trustee of the Devasthanam in 1990, succeeding his father who was removed from the position in 1987. Despite several improvements to the temple and its revenue during his tenure, multiple charges were framed against Anand in 2012 and 2013, leading to his removal by a government order on October 12, 2015. Anand’s initial appeal against this order was remitted for reconsideration in 2022, resulting in the reaffirmation of his removal in 2024.

The court highlighted significant omissions in the property registers maintained by the appellant. Anand failed to include certain properties in the new register and could not provide the old register, contravening Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. Justice Venkatesh noted, “The properties that have suddenly vanished from the register measure an extent of acres 12.88 cents covering four survey numbers,” emphasizing the critical nature of these omissions.

Anand leased out temple properties without obtaining the necessary permissions from the Commissioner, in violation of Section 34 of the Act. The court found that these actions constituted a serious breach of trust. Justice Venkatesh remarked, “The appellant was expected to get the approval of the competent authority before effecting the name transfer in the tenancy records of the Devasthanam.”

The appellant collected donations for temple renovations without forming a Thiruppani committee and without proper authorization, violating Rules 53 and 56. The court underscored the procedural requirements for collecting donations, which Anand failed to comply with, stating, “The explanation given by the appellant was found to be not satisfactory.”

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating compliance with the HR & CE Act. The court reiterated the necessity for trustees to adhere strictly to statutory obligations, particularly in maintaining accurate records and obtaining proper authorizations. “The findings of the respondent do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity,” Justice Venkatesh concluded, supporting the decision to uphold the removal of Anand.

Justice Venkatesh observed, “Such an impression in the mind of the appellant is unsustainable since the properties that have suddenly vanished from the register measure an extent of acres 12.88 cents covering four survey numbers,” highlighting the gravity of the omissions.

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the removal of G. Prem Anand underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring compliance with the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act. This ruling reinforces the importance of meticulous record-keeping and adherence to statutory procedures by temple trustees, setting a precedent for future cases involving the management of religious institutions.

 

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024

Prem Anand v. The Additional Chief Secretary, Tourism, Culture & Endowments

Similar News