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 city court.

Subject Matter Of The Case.

Temple properties.

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

1. Previously three suits pertaining to temple properties were filed on the behalf of the temple by K.S. Jaganathan and S Bhaskaran as Trustee.
2. Permanent injunction was prayed by the trustee from the court against Gnanambal and her husband who were tenants in the property.
3. 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.
4. The trial court disposed all the three suits by a common judgement
5. The court upheld that KS Jagnathan and S Bhaskaran were the trustee of the temple

Pertinent Decisions Of The Courts In The Previous Case And Revision Appeal
Decision Of The Executing Court
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 court.

Decision Of The High Court

1. The high court concluded that Umanpathymurthy was the trustee of the temple
2. The decree passed by the trial court was null and void and cannot be enforced

Important Sections In The Case
Section 47and 115 Of The Civil Procedure Code.
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

1. The temple property was administered by 3 brothers named –Sadhasivamurty, [i] Balasundaram and Sudararjan
2. The above-mentioned 3 brothers were considered the real owners of the temple properties.
3. These owners endowed the property to the temple.
4. A deed was issued by the owners wherein a provision was included that the ELDEST son of The deceased trustee would become the successor.

Issue In The Case

1. Whether, the original decree was vitiated by fraud
2. Whether, an executing court act beyond the order or decree under execution
3. Whether the high court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and exceeded its revisional jurisdiction.

Held
The Decision Of The Instant Appeal

1. 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.
2. 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
3. At last, the court declared the judgment illegal and without jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order.