Holding

Having obtained the advantage of the Supreme Court's remand, the trustees could not preclude the High Court from adjudicating the matter on its merits, and the High Court may decide the substantive issues and receive further evidence.

Summary

The hereditary trustees of six Hindu temples filed a petition under the Indian Trusts Act seeking permission to sell temple properties, which was rejected by the District Court and initially dismissed by the High Court. The High Court later allowed a review and permitted the sale, but the Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act intervened, arguing that prior sanction under Section 34(1) of the Endowments Act was required. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh merits‑based adjudication and directed the impleadment of the auction purchasers, the Commissioner and the Executive Officer. After the remand, the trustees filed a memo to withdraw both the original petition and the revision petition; the High Court allowed the withdrawal, holding that no finding in favour of the Commissioner was being nullified. The Executive Officer appealed, and the Supreme Court held that, having obtained the advantage of the remand, the trustees could not preclude the High Court from deciding the substantive issues, and that the High Court could entertain fresh evidence and decide jurisdictional facts under Section 115 CPC. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court for a merits‑based decision.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can permit withdrawal of the original petition and revision petition after the Supreme Court remanded the case for a merits‑based adjudication.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC to allow such withdrawal when substantive issues remain pending.
Whether the nature of the property (dedication vs charge) and the requirement of prior sanction under the Endowments Act can be decided afresh in the revision proceeding.
Whether the High Court may receive additional evidence and examine jurisdictional facts under Section 115 of the CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 23 Rule 1, s. Section 115
Indian Trusts Act, 1882s. Section 34
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959s. Section 34(1)

Subjects

Trust lawReligious endowmentsSale of trust propertyRevision petitionWithdrawal of suitCPC Order 23Section 115 CPCPublic trustParens patriaeMandatory sanction

Judgment

.,......

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE A
v
R. SATHYAMOORTHY AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 9, 1999

B
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure 1908, O.XXIII Rule 1(1) & '(3)-Withdrawal
of original and revision petition u11co11ditionally-Wlten pennissible--Petition
by" trnstees for pennission to sell properties endowed in six public Hindu
c
temples rejected by District Court-High Court rejecting trnstees' revision peti-
tion but allowing subsfquent Review Petition and pennitting sale by auc-
tion-Trnstees not obtqining mandatory prior sanction under s. 34(1) of
Endowment Act, 1959--Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. filing application before
District Court for impleadment and stay of sal&-Sale made but not con-
finned-Commissioner initiating proceedings against trnstees under Endow- D
ments Act-Supreme Court on consent of, trnstees allowing Commissioner's
appeal and remanding revision petition to High Court for decision afresh 011
nature of properties and whether sanction under Endowments Act neces-
sary-Supreme Court directing impleading of auction purchasers, Commis-
sioner. and Executive Officer of temple and opining dropping of proceedings
by Commissioner against Respondents-Accordingly proceedings against trns-
E
tees dropped-Trnstees filing memo in High Court seeking to withdraw original
petition and revision petition-High Court pennitting withdrawal on ground
that 110 finding of District Court in favour of Commissioner was being nul-
lified-Held, having obtained advantage of ordr of remand, Respondents
could not preclude High Court from adjudicating matter 011 merits; matter F
remitted to High Court for decision 011 merits in accordance with law.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 115--Scope of High Court's revisional
jurisdiction-Whether High Court can in a revision petition examine for the
first time nature of properties and ifsanction under Endowments Act for their G
sale was necessary-Held, there was no jurisdictional flaw in directing the
High Court· to decide nature of property; High Court could also receive
additional evidence.

The predecessors of Respondents 1 and 2 ('trustees') endowed
various properties for purpose of religious ceremonies in six public Hindu H
485
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A temples. The trustees filed a petition ('OP') in the District Court under
the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 ('Trusts Act') for permission to sell the
properties. The petition was rejected. The High Court dismissed the
trustees' revision petition ('CRP') but later allowed a review petition and
permitted the sale of the properties by auction. In a petition filed under s.
23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
B 1959 ('Endowment Act') a hereditary trustee informed the Commissioner,
H.R. & C.E. ('Commissioner') that the sale should be stopped since the
trustees had not obtained the mandatory prior sanction under s. 34(1) of
the Endowment Act. The Commissioner then filed an application before
District Court for impleadment in the OP and stay of sale. The auction
C was held but the sale was not confirmed. The Commissioner initiated
proceedings against the trustees under Endowments Act.

This Court, by consent of the trustees, allowed the Commissioner's
appeal against the High Court's order permitting sale of properties and
remanded the CRP to the High Court for a decision afresh on inter alia
D the nature of the properties and whether prior sanction under the Endow-
ments Act was necessary. This Court .directed impleadment of auction
purchasers, Commissioner and Executive Officer of temple in the CRP and
opined that in view of agreement between parties proceedings by Commis-
sioner against the trustees be dropped. Accordingly, the proceedings
E against the trustees were dropped.
The trustees then filed a memo in the High Court seeking to
withdraw both the OP and the CRP. Overruling the Commissioner's
objections, the High Court permitted withdrawal on the ground that no
finding of the District Court in favour of Commissioner was being nullified
F thereby. The Executive Officer appealed to this Court.

Allowing the appeai, this Court ·

HELD : 1. Having obtained an advantage from the order of remand,
the hereditary trustees could not have precluded the High Court from
G adjudicating the matter on merits by withdrawing the CRP and the OP.
On the ground that they would agree for an adjudication as to the nature
of the property, the trustees prayed in this Court that the proceedings
initiated by the Commissioner against them under the Endowment Act,
1959 should be directed to be dropped. This Court thought that in view of
H the agreement by the trusfoes to have an adjudication on merits, the
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLEv. R SATHYAMOORTHY 487
Commissioner could and should drop the proceedings. In fact, by the date A
of the Memo filed for withdrawal of the CRP and the OP, the Commis·
sioner had dropped the proceedings initiated against the hereditary trus·
tees. [491-G-H; 495-A·C]

Thakur Singh v. A. Achuta Rao, (1977) 2 APW 111; Kedar Nath v.
Chandra Karan, AIR (1962) All 263; V. Dube v. Harcharan, AIR (1971) All B
41; Charles Samuel v. Board of Trustees, (1978) 1 MW 243; Lala Chetram
v. Krishnamon~ (1984) 1 MW 28; Jubedan Begum v. Sekhawat Ali Khan,
AIR (1984) P & H 221 and Ram Dhan v. Jagat Prasad, AIR (1982) Raj 235,
referred to.
c
1.2. This Court by consent of parties wanted an adjudication by the
High Court, on the question whether there was a dedication of the corpus of
the property or only a charge on the income, and even if it was so whether
there was a specific endowment vested in the Commissioner, HR & CE and
whether the property could be permitted to be sold when there was a prohibi·
tion in the trust deed, whether permission of the District Court under S. 34 D
of the Trusts Act was sufficient and whether permission under S. 34 of the
Endowment Act, 1959 was necessary. Further, the Courts have a general
'parens patriae' jurisdiction over trust for charitable and religious purposes
and a question of public interest was involved because of the contentions
raised by the Commissioner, HR & CE. The High Court should go into the E
above aspects on merits and in accordance with law. [495-H; 496-A-B]

Official Trustee, W.B. v. Sachindra, AIR (1969) SC 823 and V.K
Srinivasachariar v. K Ramanujam, (1986) TNW 129, referred to.

1.3. The matter is remitted to the High Court for decision on merits F
and in accordance with law in the light of the earlier judgment of this
j
Court and the present judgment. [497·Cl

2.1. There could be no jurisdictional flaw in directing the High Court
to decide these issues. The District Court's jurisdiction under s. 34 of the G
Trusts Act depended on the decision as to the nature of the property in
question. Whether the District Court had wrongly decided the jurisdictional
fact or not could certainly be gone into in jurisdiction under Section 115 Code
of Civil Procedure. Ifit was felt some more evidence was necessary, it would be
open to the High Court to receive it directly or direct the District Court to
record evidence that parties may want to adduce. [496-F-G; 497-A·B] H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR (1959) SC 492 and
Queen v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1888) 21 - QBD 313, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2461 of
1991.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.91 of the Madras High
Court in C.R.P. No. 334 of 1987.
;.
R. Sundarvardhan, R.N. Keshwani and Chanderakanta Nagak Ris-
wan for the Appellant.

c S. Si;va Subramaniam and R. Ayyam Perumal for the Respondent.

V. Balachandran and A. Marirputham for the Respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. This appeal is preferred by the Execu-
tive Officer of the Arthanareswarar Temple against the judgment of the
High Court of Madras dated 31.1.1991 in Civil Revision Petition No. 334
of 1987.
E The following are the relevant facts :

The pn:decessors-in-interest of respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal,
endowed various immovable properties for the purpose of certain religious
ceremonies in six public Hindu temples. The subject matter of the trust-
F deed comprises of immoveable properties, lands and buildings and also
jewels. The immoveable properties comprised 5.32 hectares of wet land
situated in Sathampur village and 9 shop buildings situated in Netaji
Streets, Erode. On 28.10.1986 the respondents 1 and 2, filed a petition O.P.
No. 301 of 1985 under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 before the District
Jurlge, at Periyar to permit them to sell the lands and immoveable proper-
G ties including the nine shops by public auction or by negotiations. Obviously
the said petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 as trustees under the
trust-deed dated 19.4.1920. The learned District Judge by order dated
28.10.86 dismissed the said petition holding that under the trust deed above ""
mentioned, it was specifically stated that the trust properties should not be
H sold by the trustees and there was, in any event, no need to sell. Against
EX. OFFICER. ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE v. R. SATHYAMOORTHY [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, l.) 489
the said order of the learned District Judge, a revision C.R.P. 334 of 1987 A
was filed in the Madras High Court but the same was dismissed on
28 ..Ll.1988 again on the ground that the sale was prohibited by the trust
deed and that circumstances which warrant a sale of the properties did not
exist and there was no necessity to sell the properties. Against the said
order passed by the learned Single Judge, a review application was filed
by the respondent 1 and 2. The said review application was however,
B
allowed by the learned Single Judge on 3.3.89 granting permission for sale.
The learned Judge stated that the contention before him was that the
property was not fetching proper income and that if the land was sold, the
interest therefrom could be used for the purpose of the temple and such
a sale of the immoveable properties would be beneficial and not detrimen- c
tal to the temple. Accepting this contention, the learned Judge allowed the
review application and granted permission of sale of the immoveable
properties. It was also stated in the order dated 3.3.1989 that the tenants
who appeared through counsel had no objection to the above course. It
was further mentioned that the tenants offered to purchase the properties D
for Rs. 9.25 lakhs. In view of the said offer, the learned Judge directed that
the offer Rs. 9.25 lakhs should be treated as upset price and offers above
the said figure should be invited by publication through the District Court
and the property be sold to the highest bidder. The entire sale proceeds
were to be deposited by the purchaser to the credit of O.P. 301 of 1985 on
the file of the District Court, Periyar Erode. The District Judge was E
directed to deposit the said amount in fixed deposit for a period of three
years initially and thereafter renew the same once in three years. The
deposit was to be made in the State bank of India, Periyar, Erode iii the
name of Trust for its use. The trustees (respondents 1 and 2/ were to be
permitted to withdraw ihe interest. It was directed that the sale proceeds
F
should not be withdrawn except for depos:ting the same in some other
better security and that too with the approval of the Court.

One of the hereditary trustees of the temple V.E. Nadanasabhabathy
(respondent 5 in this appeal) filed a petition before the Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment under Section 23 of the Tamil G
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, (Act 22 of 1959),
(hereinafter called the Endowment Act, 1959) bringing to his notice that
the properties had been ordered to be auctioned on 23.12.1989 by the
learned District Judge, Periyar, Erode by orders passed in O.P. 301of1985
and this should be stopped. In that application, he prayed for stay of the H

f
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A public auction of the properties belonging to the specific endowment
attached to the five Temples. He submitted that the District Court had no
jurisdiction to auction the specific endowments without obtaining sanction
under Section 34{1) of the Endowment Act, 1959. He also prayed the
Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Department to issue directions to the Deputy
Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem and Assistant Commissioner, H.R. &
B C.E., Salem to get themselves impleaded in I.A. 2292 of 1989 and in the
O.P. No. 301 of 1985 before the District Court, Periyar, Erode and stop
the auction schedule for 23.12.89.

The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. then filed an application on
C 21.12.89 before the District Judge for impleading himself and for stay for
auction. No order of stay was passed. The sale was held but confirmation
was not made in view of certain other orders obtained by the Commissioner
from the High Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.

D
At that stage the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. filed special leave
petition in this Court praying for setting aside the judgment of the High
Court dated 3.3.89 passed in review application. The same was admitted
and registered as C.A. 1930 of 1990. This Hon'ble Court by Judgment
dated 10.4.1990 disposed of the said Civil Appeal stating that apart from
E other considerations, the review petition was disposed of without the
Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. being made a party. It was not necessary to
go into the question whether he was a necessary party or not to the petition
inasmuch as it was agreed by all the parties that the appeal might be
allowed and the order passed in the review application be set aside. The
p Supreme Court consequently directed the High Court to implead the
auction purchasers, the Commissioner H.R. & C.E. and the Executive
Officer of the temple in the main C.R.P. 334of1987 which was reopened lr

for fresh disposal. This Court directed that the said C.R.P. be disposed of
"on merits and according to law". It was further stated by this Court that
it would be open to all the parties to take up such contentions before the
G High Court as permissible in law inducting any contentions which the
auction purchaser and the trustees might raise stating that the property in
question was not part of trust property but that there was only a charge on
the properties of the trust. In view of the remand the notice which had
been issued to trustees (respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal) by the
H Commissioner, for allegedly violating the provisions of the Endowment

.
EX. OFl'ICER,ARTHANARESWARAR IBMPLE '· R. SATHYAMOORTHY (M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 491
4
Act, 1959 should be dropped. The Civil appeal was accordingly allowed A
and the matter was remitted to the High Court.

On 7.1.1991 the trustees, namely respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a
Memo in the High Court seeking permission under Order 23 Rule 1 of
C.P.C. to withdraw C.R.P. 332 of 1987 as well as O.P. 301of1985. In the
said memo it was stated that the properties mentioned in the Schedule to B
O.P. 301 of 1985 before the District Judge had not been absolutely dedi-
cated to any temple or other institution but only a charge was created on
the income from the property for the purpose of certain specific services
to be performed in the temple as per the trust-deed dated 19 .4.1920 and
the trustees were reserving the right to raise the said contentions as and c
when they arose again. The revision petitioners sought leave of the High
Court to withdraw the C.R.P. 334 of 1987 as well as O.P. 301 of 1985 on
.
the file of the District Court.

To the above said Memo, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. filed a
D
- reply on 13.1.1991 stating that the Supreme Court had directed the High
Court to dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law and
to decide all questions including the question whether there was only a
charge on the property. It was stated by the Commissioner that the depart-
ment was in possession of important documents to show that the properties
were absolutely endowed for the purpose of certain religious service in six E
temples and there were specific endowments and that the department was
having actual control 9ver the trust for almost five decades. He stated that
the revision petitioners were wanting to withdraw the C.R.P. as well as O.P.
only to defeat the ends of justice. If the withdraw! was granted, the
department would be put to great difficulties. It was further stated that the
F
Supreme Court ordered the disposal of the C.R.P. on "merits and.accord-
ing to law" and also dropped certain proceedings taken by the Commis-
sioner·against the hereditary trustees and the department had to abide by
the order of the Supreme Court and dropped the said proceedings against
the hereditary trustees. Having benefited from the order of the Supreme
Court, the trustees could not be permitted to withdraw the C.R.P. and the G
_._ O.P.

On these contentions, the High Court passed the impugned order
dated 31.12.1991 permitting withdraw! as prayed for both of the C.R.P. as
well as O.P. 301 of 1985 in the District Court. The learned Judge observed H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 1 S.C.R.
A that the direction of this Court for disposal of the C.R.P. on merits would
have become necessary only if there was an adjudication of the question
as raised by the parties. But when the parties who approached the District
Court with application for permission to sell, wanted to withdraw the
application itself, thus avoiding a decision on any question which might
B arise in the application, it was not for the High Court to compel the parties
to continue the 0.P. and to insist upon a decision in the matter. While
granting permission to withdraw, the Court was not deciding any question
and no advantage would be gained by the revision petitioners by withdrawal
of the proceedings. The Executive Officer and the Commissioner who were
respondents 14 and 15 in the C.R.P. were not placed in any disad-
C vantageous position. If there was any finding in their favour which might
get nullified by the withdrawal, in that event, it could be said that they
would be prejudiced by the withdrawal but that was not the position. Here
the District Judge had proceeded on the basis that the property was a
private trust. There was no finding by the District Court which was in
D favour of the respondents or the Executive Officer which would get nul-
lified and hence they could not object to the withdrawal of the original
petition. The character of the property whatever it was before the filing of
O.P. 301 of 1985, continued to be the same and it was not alterd by the
withdrawal of the 0 .P. It was not necessary that a separate petition should
be filed under Order 23 Rule 1 and a Memo was sufficient. For the above
E reasons the C.R.P. and O.P. were permitted to be withdrawn. It was also
stated that in the sale which took place on 23.12.1989 in favour of the
auction purchasers confirmation had not taken place and therefore those
purchasers should be allowed to withdraw the sum of Rs. 31.36 lakhs
deposited by them in the bank.
F
It is now on record that after the order of the High Court permitting
the withdrawal of the C.R.P. and the O.P. was passed, the respondents 1
and 2, the hereditary trustees have again sold the properties on 21.2.1991
under sale deeds for Rs. 18.50 lakhs as opposed to the sum of Rs. 28.25
lakhs realised in the earlier auction dated 23.12.89. It is not in dispute that
G the sale dated 21.2.1991 is without the permission of the District Court.
Obviously, the trustees have sold the land as if it was not even trust
property, a stand which they had earlier taken in the O.P.

In this appeal, we have heard submissions of the learned senior
H counsel for the appellant Shri R. Sundaravardhan and of the learned senior
EX. OFFICER, ARTIIANARESWARAR TEMPLE>. R. SATHYAMOORTHY [M. JAGANNADHA RAO,J.] 493
J(
counsel for the auction purchasers, Shri S. Siva Subramanium and of the A
learned counsel for the hereditary trustees, Shri V. Balachandran.

The point for consideration is : whether the order of the High Court.
permitting withdrawal of the C.R.P. and the O.P. is liable to be interfered
with?
B
It will be noticed that in the earlier order dated 28.11.88, the High
Court, while dismissing the C.R.P. rejected the contention of the trustees
that there was no dedication of the corpus that there was only a charge on
the income. The Court referred to Official Trnstee, W.B. v. Sachindra, AIR
(1969) S.C. 823. for the proposition that the District Court had no power
to ·grant permision to the trustees to sell property if such a sale was
c
prohibited by the deed of trust. The High Court rejected the contention of
the trustees that there was only a charge in the income and distinguished
the decision in V.K. Srinivasachariar v. K. Ramanujam & 4 Others, (1986)
T.N.L.J. 129. The High Court observed, while dismissing the revision.
D
"In the case on hand by virtue of the trust deed, the properties were
dedicated for the performance of religious charities in the temple,
the mere fact that the management vested with the members of
the family would not mean that they can go against the wishes of
the person who created the trust and aliniate the properites.
E
Even otherwise, on facts, I fmd that the petitioners have not
made out any case of necessity for sale of the properties."

Accordingly, the C.R.P. was dismissed.

¥
The subsequent event can be summarised as follows : F
A Review Petition C.M.P. No. 16722 of 1988 was filed and was as
stated earlier, allowed on 3.3.89 by the same learned Judge granting
permission to sell for a price above upset price of Rs. 9.25 lakhs, which
was the amount offered by the tenants. It as at that stage that tb.e Comrnis-
sioner, HR & CE, passed orders on 20.12.89 on the petition of the 5th G
.:
.... respondent filed on 20.12.1989, directing the Deputy Commissioner, HR &
CE, Salem to intervene, and implead himself as a party and get stay of the
sale of the auction dated 23.12.1989. The Deputy Commissioner filed IA
3390 of 1989 and 3391of1989 in the O.P. before the District Judge but no
such orders were passed. Auction on 23.12.89 of AC 5.32 hectares of wet H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A land and 9 shops yielded Rs. 28.25 lakhs. However, in Article 227 proceed-· ..
ings, the Commissioner obtained orders that confirmation of sale be with-
held. According to the plea of Deputy Commissioner, the property was a
specific endowment-which vested, under Section 23 of the Endowment Act,
1959 in the Commissioner and sale thereof required permission of the
Commissioner under Section 34 (1) of the said Act. The Commissioner,
B H.R.& C.E. filed SLP and his appeal was admitted, and ultimately the Civil
Appeal No. 1930 of 1990 was allowed by this Court on 10.4.90 and the High
Court was asked to decide the revision afresh "on merits and according to
law''. It was at that stage that the respondents 1, 2 filed the Memo on
30.1.1991 for withdrawal of the CRP and the OP. The Commissioner, H.R.
c & C.E. opposed by counter dated 13.6.91 but the High Court felt that by
permitting withdrawal of the CRP and also the OP, no finding arrived at
by the District Judge in favour of the H.R. & C.E. Department was being
nullified and that in such an event there could be no objection to permit
the withdrawal of the CRP and the OP.

D It is true that in a large number of cases decided by the High Courts,
it was held while dealing with applications under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC, ...
that if an appeal was preferred by an unsuccessful plaintiff against the
judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit and if the plaintiff appellant
wanted to withdraw not only the appeal but also the suit unconditionally,
E then such a permission so far as the withdraw! of the suit was concerned,
can be granted if there was no question of any adjudication on merits in
favour of the defendants by the trial being nullified by such withdrawal. On
the other hand, if any such findings by the trial court in favour of the
defendant would set nullified, such permission for withdrawal of the suit
should not be granted. (See Thakur Singh v. A. Achuta Rao, (1977) 2 APLJ
F
111; Kedar Nath v. Chandra Karan, AIR (1962) All. 263; V. Dube v.
Harcharan, AIR (1971) All. 41; Charles Samuel v. Board of Trnstees, [1978] "
1MLJ243; Lala Chetram v. Krishnamoni, [1984) 1MLJ28;Jubedan Begum
v. Sekhawat Ali Khan, AIR 1984) P. & H 221; Ram Dhan v. Jagat Prasad,
AIR (1982) Raj. p. 235. In the present case, the learned Judge felt that no
G such finding in favour of the Commissioner was being nullified by the
withdrawal of the OP at the stage of revision and therefore the withdraw!
of OP was permissible. Jr

The above approach of the High Court is legally correct but there
H are, in our opinion, certain other factors which ought to have been taken
~1

EX. OFFICER,ARTIIANARESWARAR TEMPLEv. R.SA1HYAMOOR1HY [M.JAGANNADHARAO,J.j 495

into consideration by the High Court. The most important aspect was that A
on the ground that they would agree for an adjudication as to the nature
of the property, the hereditary trustees prayed in this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 1930 of 1990 that the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner
against them under the Endowment Act, 1959 should be directed to be
dropped. This Court thought that in view of the agreement by the trustees· B
to have an adjudication on merits, the Commissioner could and should
drop the proceedings. In fact, by the date of the Memo filed for withdrawal
of the CRP and the OP, the Commissioner had dropped the proceedings
initiated against the hereditary trustees. In our view, having obtained such
an advantage from the order of remand, the hereditary trustees could not
have precluded the High Court from adjudicating the matter on merits by C
withdrawing the CRP and the OP.

Further, the OP was filed in the District Court by the respondents
without impleading the Commissioner, HR & CE at the stage of confirma-
tion of sale, the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE had intervened. Again D
in the CRP there was initially a finding by the learned Judge that there was
dedication not merely of the income but of the property. It was also held
that in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Trnstee W.B.
v. Sachindra, AIR (1969) SC 823, it was not permissible for the Court to
give sanction for sale if under the trust deed, such a sale was prohibited.
When the Review petition was heard, the Commissioner HR & CE was a E
party before the High Court and he filed objections claiming that property
was a specific endowment and permission of the Commissioner under
Section 34 of the Endowment Act, 1959 was necessary and permission of
the District Court under the Trust Act was not sufficient. Further, in the
Civil Appeal 1930 of 1990 it was agreed by the HR & CE Commissioner, F
the auction purchasers and the trustees and interested persons that the
matter shall be decided "on merits by the High Court and in accordance
with law". After the Memo for withdrawal was filed, the Commissioner
contended, in addition, that he having dropped proceedings against the
trustees as directed by the Supreme Court, he was entitled to an adjudica-
tion on merits. G

It is, therefore, clear that this Court by consent of parties wanted an
adjudication by the High Court, on the questions whether there was a
dedication of the corpus of the property or only a charge on the income,
and even if it was so whether there was a specific endowment vested in the H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A , Commissioner, HR & CE and whether the property could be permitted to
b~ sold when there was a prohibition in the trust deed, whether permission
of the District Court under Section 34 of the Trust Act was sufficient and
whether permission under Section 34 of the Endowment Act, 1959 was
necessary. Further, the Courts have a general 'parens Patriae' jurisdiction
B over trusts for charitable and religious purposes and a question of public
interest was involved because of the contentions raised by the Commis-
sioner; HR & CE. o;

Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court should go into the
above aspects on merits and in accordance with law.
c
A question was raised by the learned senior counsel for the respon-
dents as to whether Qie High Court could go into these issues for the first
time in revision in the absence of fresh evidence. Primarily here, the deed
of trust is the crucial document upon which these issues turn and we think
D there can be no difficulty in construing the same for the purpose of
deciding whether there is a dedication of the corpus or the income of the
property so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, HR & CE
because it is the case of the Commissioner in the objections already filed
(which are found in the record of the CA No. 1930 of 1990) that this is a
'specific endowment' and that the nature of the property is such that the
E District Court cannot entertain the OP and grant permission for sale and
that only the Commissioner can, and that too, if it is permissible to grant
permission on the facts of the case.

In the present case the Distict Court has no doubt not granted
p permission to sell but it has proceeded on the basis that it has jurisdiction
in relation to the subject matter of the OP. In our view, the District Courts'
Jurisdiction under section 34 of the Trusts Act depends upon the decision
as to the nature of the property in question. By wrongly deciding its nature,
the District Court cannot assume jurisdiction upon itself to grant permis-
sion for sale. Whether the District Court has wrongly decided the jurisdic-
G tional fact or not can certainly be gone into in jurisdiction under section
115 Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held by this Court in Chaube
Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1959 SC 492, that even in matters
arising under section 115 CPC, the High Court can certainly decide
whether jurisdictional facts have been correctly decided by the subordinate
H court or not, on the basis of the well-known principles laid down by Lord
EX. OFFICER, ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE,. R SATHYAMOORTHY [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 497

Esher M.R. in Queen v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1888) 21 Q.B.D. A
313. There can, therefore, be no jurisdcitiona flaw in directing the High
Court to decide these issues. In view of the consent order passed by this
Court earlier in the Civil Appeal, if it is felt that some more evidence is
necessary, it will be open to the High Court to receive the same directly
or direct the District Court t<;> record such oral or documentary evidence
as the parties may want to adduce, and have the same brought up to the
B
High Court for use in the revision for decision on these issues.

The appeal is allowed and the matter is, therefore, remitted to the
High Court for decision on merits and in accordance with law in the light
of the ealier judgment of this Court and the present judgment. It will, C
however, be open to the High Court to pass such interlocutory orders as
it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. There will be no ordes as
to costs.

S.M. Appeal allowed.