Can an Executive Officer sue in the name of a religious institution with the approval of the competent authority?

Paragraph 41It is relevant to state that the plaintiff charity is a different entity. The defendants are group of individuals claiming title and partition with charity. It is to be noted that the defendants cannot said to be joint owners with the institution which is recognised as a Public Trust administered by HR&CE The open lease and open auctions said to have been held by charity on behalf of rival claimants and payment of kists by charity also cannot be accounted on behalf of the joint pattadars. The theory of alleged joint possession is only invented after more than 100 years. If they were joint owners, how they kept quite when Alavandar himself dealt with the properties, his exclusive right and title by registered instruments. It is also relevant to note that after Alavandar demise, why they did not challenge the administration of the charity and through Court trustees have been appointed and the subsequent vesting of charity with the HR&CE Board and why they had been kept quiet all along when the department has been collecting lease warrams from pattadars and why the rival claimants participated in the department in the leasing of lands and subsequent sale of Casuarina trees by entering into agreements. Be that as it may, the first and foremost contention of the appellant is that the Executive Officer cannot maintain a Suit. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that Section 7(9) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, defines the Executive Officer. Executive Officer means a person who is appointed to exercise such powers and discharge such duties appertaining to the administration of a religious institution as are assigned to him by or under this Act or the Rules made thereunder or by any Scheme settled or deemed to have been settled under this Act. It is also relevant to note that the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, confer powers on the Executive Officer to file Suit on behalf of the temple.

Paragraph 43It is pertinent to mention that in the case on hand, the first Scheme Suit after the demise of Alavandar came to be filed in O.S.No.13/1916 on the file of Sub-Court, Chengalpatttu wherein, the Will dated 22.06.1914 was declared valid and the properties are Trust properties. The said Scheme Decree went on appeal in A.S.No.226/1916 wherein, this Court declared that Sri Alavandar charities is a Public Trust of permanent nature and also upheld the Will. The 2nd Scheme Suit came to be filed in O.S.No.1/1943 on the file of the District Court, Chengalpattu, wherein, HR&CE was impleaded and the control and superintendence vested with the Board and the same has been affirmed by this Court in A.S.No.37/1945. As per Rule 4(b)(iii) of Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officer Rules, 2015, the Executive Officer can sue or be sued in the name of religious institutions in all the legal proceedings with the approval of the competent authority. In the case on hand, admittedly the control and administration of Plaintiff Charity by HR & CE Department has been ordered by this Court. In view of the above, the Suit filed by the Executive Officer is very well maintainable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of Plaintiff Charity. POINT NO.2