The case was an
instant appeal of the order passed by the high court of Madras in the case of
Sebastian v/s Ks Jeganathan
Which sets aside the order of the civil
Subject Matter Of The Case.
S Bhaskaran v/s Sebastian -
(2019)9 SCC 161
Bench Strength 3: (NV. Ramana, M.M Shantanagoudar And Ajay Rastogi, JJ) -
Judgement Delivered By: Mm Shantanagoudar J.
Important Actualities To Know For A Better Understanding
Pertinent Decisions Of The Courts In The Previous Case And Revision Appeal
Decision Of The Executing Court
- Previously three suits pertaining to temple properties were filed on the
behalf of the temple by K.S. Jaganathan and S Bhaskaran as
- Permanent injunction was prayed by the trustee from the court against
Gnanambal and her husband who were tenants in the property.
- The respondent represented by Umapathymurthy claimed that he was the eldest
son of Sadhasivamurthy and had been deposed from the trusteeship of the temple
by his younger brother.
- The trial court disposed all the three suits by a common judgement
- The court upheld that KS Jagnathan and S Bhaskaran were the trustee of the
The court observed that the judgement debtor had not objected to the heir
certificate when it was produced before the trial court and the adjudication by
the trial court was done on merit basis, thus the executing court decided to
dismiss the file under section 47 of CPC.
Nevertheless, a revision petition was filed against the order of the executing
Decision Of The High Court
Important Sections In The Case
Section 47and 115 Of The Civil Procedure Code.
- The high court concluded that Umanpathymurthy was the trustee of the temple
- The decree passed by the trial court was null and void and cannot be
These Sections talk about the power of the executing court and the limitations
on it. It says that the court cannot travel beyond the scope of decree or order
and order passed by the executing court by going beyond the decree or order
under the execution would render such orders as without jurisdiction.
Whereas under the section 115 of the CPC the high court cannot revise any order
or order deciding an issue or decree against which an appeal lies to the high
court or to any subordinate court
Facts Of The Case
Issue In The Case
- The temple property was administered by 3 brothers named –Sadhasivamurty,
[i] Balasundaram and Sudararjan
- The above-mentioned 3 brothers were considered the real owners of the
- These owners endowed the property to the temple.
- A deed was issued by the owners wherein a provision was included that
the ELDEST son of
The deceased trustee would become the successor.
The Decision Of The Instant Appeal
- Whether, the original decree was vitiated by fraud
- Whether, an executing court act beyond the order or decree under
- Whether the high court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction.
- In the instant appeal the court disagreed with the decision of the high
court, as during the trial court proceeding UMAPATHYMURTHY did not put
forth any objections and judgement was confirmed by the first appellate court
thus the decision of the trial court should be upheld.
- The court also stated by allowing to reopen the question of trusteeship
the high court has gone beyond its power of revisional jurisdiction
under SECTION 115 CPC
- At last, the court declared the judgment illegal and without
jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order.