Madras High Court
Kanjamally Mudaliar Charitable ... vs State Of Tamilnadu on 27 October, 2022
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
Kanjamally Mudaliar Charitable Trust,
2/1, Municipal Office Road,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli - 620 001.
Represented by its Trustee,
D.M.Ram Mohan ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Finance (W & M.II) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
(Cause title accepted vide Order dt. 02.07.2012
made in MP.No.2 of 2012 in W.A.Sr.No.39314/12) ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the
order in W.P.No.11751 of 2009 dated 04.03.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Srikanth
For Respondent : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram
Advocate General Assisted by
Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in the Writ Appeal is to the order of the Writ Court
dismising the claim of the petitioner on merits as well as on the ground of
competence. Necessary back ground facts are as follows:-
The petitioner Trust had loaned, a sum of 5,000 Star Pagodas
under two different bonds, to the East India Company during the year 1775
and on 18.02.1776 bonds were issued by the East India Company,
acknowledging the said loan aggreeing to pay interest at 6% for the loan of
2,000 Pagodas and 8% for the loan of 3,000 Pagodas. The number of
Pagodas that would be paid as interest was also stated in the communication
issued by the Deputy Superintendent of the Company on 06.05.1776. In the
year 2000, the Trustee made a request for the copy of the bonds and in the
year 2001, the Trustee claimed the current value of the Star Pagodas from
the Government. Since the said request was rejected by the Government by
letter dated 05.07.2008, the petitioner has come up with a Writ Petition.
2.The rejection of the request of the petitioner was on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
that the transaction is a simple loan transaction wherein, the petitioner Trust
had loaned the Star Pagodas as the then existing currency. During the year
1818, when the currency was converted into rupee, the intrinsic value of the
Star Pagodas was worked out at 3 Rupees 50 Paise per Star Pagoda and the
principle amount loaned by the petitioner was arrived at Rs.17,500/-. The
interest on the said Rs.17,500/- was also worked at 6% for Rs.7,000/- and
8% for Rs.10,500/- at Rs.420/- and Rs.840/- per annum respectively. It is
not in dispute that the interest is being paid till date.
3.The petitioner's contention before the Writ Court was that it
would be entitled to return of the Star Pagodas in Specie or it should be
valued at the prevailing cost of gold. This contention was rejected by the
Writ Court on the ground that what was loaned was a currency and not gold
as such. The Writ Court further held that the petitioner would be entitled to
interest on the converted value of the currency alone. After having
concluded as above, the Writ Court went one step further and held, this
being a matter of contract, the Writ Petition is not competent.
4.We have heard Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
appellant and Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Advocate General
appearing for the respondents.
5.While Mr.T.Srikanth would attempt to persuade us to accept his
contention that what was loaned was gold as such and not the currency, the
learned Advocate General would submit that it was the then existing
currency that was loaned and upon conversion of the currency, instrinsic
value of the old currency was converted under the new currency regime and
value was arrived at 3 Rupees 50 Paise per Star Pagoda in the year 1818 and
the petitioner Trust accepted the said value for over 130 years and therefore
it is not open to them to raise the issue after more than a century.
6.Mr.T.Srikanth would additionally submit that having held that
the Writ Petition is not competent, the learned Single Judge ought not to
have pronounced order on the merits of the Writ Petition. We have
considered contentions of the learned counsel appearing on the either side.
7.We find that the second submission of Mr.T.Srikanth is more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
acceptable. Having held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, the Writ
Court ought not to have gone further and pronounced on the merits. When
the Court reaches the conclusion that the Writ Petition is not maintainable,
proceeding to examine the merits is not, in our considered opinion, just and
proper. We are therefore, constrained to set aside the findings of the Writ
Court on merits while sustaining the order only on the question of
jurisdiction.
8.Therefore, the Writ Appeal is party allowed, setting aside the
conclusions of the Writ Court on merits while upholding its conclusion on
the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition will stand
dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek
adjudication of iis rights before the appropriate forum. No costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (K.B., J.)
27.10.2022
kkn
Internet:No
Index:Yes
Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
KKN
To:-
The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Finance (W & M.II) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
W.A.No.1509 of 2012
27.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
