Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras High Court Upholds Temple's Title Based on Ancient Records, Dismisses Petitions Challenging Eviction

Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging eviction orders issued by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, affirming the title of Arulmighu Perumal Swamy Thirukkoil in Kathari Village, Tirupattur District, over land claimed by the petitioners through ancestral possession dating back to a 1940 sale deed.

In a common order pronounced on October 18, 2024, Justice M.DHANDAPANI ruled that ancient revenue records from 1890 and a finding by the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal (MIAT) establishing the land as temple property were decisive, overriding claims based on a disputed sale and prolonged possession.

Case Background and Conflicting Claims

The dispute revolved around a larger extent of land in Survey No. 84/1. The petitioners are legal heirs claiming title through a 1940 sale deed executed in favour of their grandmother, Pachaiammal , by the legal heir of one Chennadasiri . They argued their family had been in continuous possession for over 80 years.

The temple, represented by HR&CE officials and the Fit Person/Executive Officer, contended the land was an 'inam' (gift) granted to the deity for performing services and belonged to the temple.

Decades of Litigation

The ownership dispute is decades old. In 1956, temple trustees filed a suit (O.S. No. 53/1956) for recovery of possession against Pachaiammal 's sons. This suit was dismissed in 1958, and an appeal (A.S. No. 353/1959) was also dismissed in 1961. The civil courts held that the temple had failed to prove its title over the property. Crucially, the High Court noted that these judgments did not establish the title of the defendants (petitioners' predecessors) either, finding that the vendor in the 1940 sale deed likely held the land as a service inam and had no alienable title. The issue of title was left undetermined.

Later, the Inam Tribunal (MIAT No. 13/1976) initiated proceedings to cancel pattas issued to the petitioners' predecessors. Relying on ancient records from 1890 showing the land as "Perumalsami Kovil Inam" or "Perumal Koil - Poojai Kovil ," the Tribunal found the land belonged to the temple and cancelled the pattas. An appeal against this Tribunal order was unsuccessful.

The current round of litigation began after a public interest litigation (PIL) in 2021 sought removal of encroachments on temple land, prompting the HR&CE Department to initiate action under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act). The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, ordered eviction in March 2023, setting the petitioners ex parte. The petitioners filed revision petitions with the HR&CE Commissioner and also challenged the eviction notices in separate writ petitions, which were disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to hear the revisions after affording opportunity. The Commissioner ultimately dismissed the revisions in July 2024, upholding the eviction orders and confirming the temple's title.

Petitioners' Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioners primarily argued that the earlier civil court judgments constituted res judicata , barring the temple from re-agitating the title issue before the Inam Tribunal or HR&CE authorities. They contended the Inam Tribunal order was invalid as it relied on new documents not presented in the civil suits and passed without adequate opportunity. They also argued the HR&CE proceedings under Section 78 were conducted summarily, violating principles of natural justice, and that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of revision by delving into merits rather than just examining the procedural lapse of setting them ex parte.

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Justice DHANDAPANI rejected the petitioners' contentions.

• On Res Judicata: The Court found that the civil court judgments in the 1950s and 60s only held that the temple failed to prove its title. They did not hold that the petitioners' predecessors had established their title. Therefore, the issue of title was not finally determined by the civil courts, and the Inam Tribunal was not barred by res judicata from adjudicating the issue of patta cancellation based on the temple's claim.
• On Temple Title: The Court upheld the Inam Tribunal's reliance on the 1890 revenue records, describing them as "ancient documents" proving the land was granted as inam to the temple. The term " Perumal Gudi Inam " or "Devadayam" as per the civil court's own observation, signifies either absolute grant to the deity or a service tenure. The description "Perumal Koil - Poojai Kovil " in the settlement register suggested the land was given to the temple for income to be used for poojas, rather than an exclusive 'Poojari Inam'.
• On Petitioners' Title Claim: The Court found that the 1940 sale deed to Pachaiammal was legally invalid as the vendor, Raghavalu Naidu (Chennadasari's heir), likely held the land only as a service inam and lacked the right to alienate it, especially without following the provisions of Section 21 of the Minor Inams Abolition Act. The petitioners' claim of title based on such a purchase was unsustainable.
• On HR&CE Proceedings: Citing the previous High Court order, Justice DHANDAPANI noted that ample opportunity was provided to the petitioners by the Joint Commissioner during the Section 78 proceedings, but they failed to utilize it. The claim of arbitrary ex parte order was rejected.
• On Scope of Revision: The Court held that the HR&CE Commissioner, as the revisional authority, was bound to consider the entire case, including relevant materials like the Inam Tribunal order and ancient documents, and was not restricted merely to the procedural ground raised by the petitioners.

The Court concluded that the HR&CE Commissioner's order was "just and reasonable and legally sustainable," warranting no interference.

Direction on Pending Encroachment Cases

Before concluding, Justice DHANDAPANI strongly criticized the HR&CE authorities for the large number of pending Section 78 applications across the state, which allows alleged encroachers to continue enjoying temple lands intended for religious purposes. The Court directed the HR&CE Commissioner to collect comprehensive particulars from all jurisdictional Assistant/Joint Commissioners and file a report before the Court by October 29, 2024, detailing the status of all pending Section 78 applications.

The Court emphasized that Section 78 applications must be dealt with "with judicious conscience and disposed of in all earnestness at the earliest," as delayed action defeats the purpose of removing encroachments and restoring lands to their rightful owners.

The writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions were accordingly dismissed.