Ajay Rastogi JUDGMENT
N.V. Ramana, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.11.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000, whereby the appeal filed by the Appellants Under Section 70(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter "the Act") was dismissed.
2. The short issue before us relates to the nature of the institution called "Bakers Choultry", situated at No. 23, South Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600004, as well as the nature of the endowment it has been burdened with.
3. The genesis of this dispute lies in the year 1987, when the Appellants' predecessor-in-interest filed an application Under Section 63(a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras for a declaration to the effect that the "Bakers Choultry" is a private property belonging to him, with a duty cast on him to perform certain private charities. This application was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.1990, and the appeal against the above order, before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras, also came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.03.1994. Being aggrieved, the Appellants' predecessor-in-interest then filed a civil suit, being Original Suit No. 4510 of 1994, Under Section 70(1) of the Act, challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. However, this civil suit also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.03.1999. An appeal being Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000 was thereafter filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein due to the demise of the Appellants' predecessor-in-interest the present Appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. The High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2008. The Appellants thereafter filed the present Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave. This Court, vide order dated 14.05.2010, directed that status quo as to possession is to be maintained during the pendency of this appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants, in challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, submitted that in the facts of the present case the Courts were incorrect in holding that a specific endowment existed........