Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a dispute concerning the right to receive first respect as an Ambalam in a village in Tamil Nadu. The appellant, Ganesan, through his power agent, had obtained an order from the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, recognizing his Ambalam right. This order was challenged by the third respondent, P.R. Ramanathan, who filed an appeal under Section 69 of the Act before the Commissioner. The appeal was filed with a delay of 266 days, and the third respondent sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Commissioner condoned the delay, which was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before the Madras High Court. The learned single Judge upheld the Commissioner's order, and the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the Commissioner is a court for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, whether Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before the Commissioner, and whether the Commissioner has the power to condone delay under Section 5. The appellant argued that the Commissioner is not a court as defined under the Act, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to courts. The respondent contended that the Commissioner has the trappings of a court and that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act makes Section 5 applicable. The Supreme Court analyzed the definitions under the Act, noting that the Commissioner is an authority appointed by the Government, while the court is defined as a civil court. The Court held that the Commissioner is not a court and that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings before courts, not to statutory authorities. The Court further observed that Section 115 of the Act only incorporates Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies, indicating that other provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable. Consequently, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Commissioner, and restored the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 21.12.2010.
Headnote
A) Hindu Religious Endowments - Commissioner as Authority - Definition of Court - Sections 6(6), 6(7), 8, 9, 69, 110, 115 Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Commissioner is an authority under the Act and not a court as defined under Section 6(7) which refers to civil courts - Commissioner exercises quasi-judicial functions but lacks the trappings of a court for purposes of Limitation Act - Held that Commissioner is not a court (Paras 9-15). B) Limitation Act - Applicability to Special Statutes - Section 29(2) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(2) applies only to suits, appeals or applications filed in a court, not to proceedings before statutory authorities or tribunals unless the special or local law makes them applicable - Since Commissioner is not a court, Section 29(2) cannot be invoked to apply Section 5 of Limitation Act - Held that Section 29(2) does not apply to appeals under Section 69 of Act 1959 (Paras 16-20). C) Hindu Religious Endowments - Delay Condonation - Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 69 Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Commissioner hearing appeal under Section 69 has no power to condone delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act as the Act does not confer such power and the scheme excludes application of Limitation Act except as provided in Section 115 - Held that delay condonation order dated 31.07.2013 was without jurisdiction (Paras 21-25). D) Hindu Religious Endowments - Exclusion of Limitation Act - Section 115 Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 115 only incorporates Section 12(2) of Limitation Act for exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies, indicating that other provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to proceedings under the Act - Held that the Act expressly excludes applicability of Limitation Act except to the extent provided (Paras 26-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the Commissioner can condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Act by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court dated 04.12.2017 and the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22.08.2014 are set aside. The order of the Commissioner dated 31.07.2013 condoning the delay is also set aside. The order of the Joint Commissioner dated 21.12.2010 is restored.
Law Points
- Commissioner is not a court under Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act
- 1959
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963 not applicable to appeals under Section 69 of the Act
- Section 29(2) of Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before statutory authorities not being courts
- Section 115 of the Act only incorporates Section 12(2) of Limitation Act
- Scheme of Act 1959 excludes applicability of Limitation Act except as provided
