Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4045
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
The Executive Officer, Soundereswarar Devasthanam, Madras
Versus
G. Kuppuswamy Mudaliar & Others
A.S. No.1404 of 1988
Decided on: 06-10-2009
For the Appellant:V. Selvaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: ---
The central legal point established is that the sale of temple property must be in the interest of the temple, and necessary permissions must be obtained in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Trustees - Sale of Temple Property - H.R. & C.E. Act - Section 34 - Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., (1986) 3 SCC 391 :: AIR 1986 SC 1158
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the trustees of a temple seeking a refund of the advance consideration paid for purchasing temple property. The trial court passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff, holding the trustees liable to pay the amount with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trustees had entered into a valid agreement to sell the temple property to the plaintiff. However, it held that the sale was not in the interest of the temple and the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund from the temple trustees.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sale agreement, liability of the trustees, and the necessity and beneficial nature of the sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the trustees of the temple are expected to act in the interest of the temple and obtain necessary permissions for the sale of temple property. It cited the Chenchu Rami Reddy case to highlight the need for protection of temple property and the requirement for public auction to safeguard the interest of the temple.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree were set aside in part, absolving the fourth defendant from liability. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 21 August 1987 in O.S.No.1973/1986 on the file of the learned XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The fourth defendant is the appellant.
3. Parties to this appeal are referred to as plaintiff and Defendants.
Background facts :-
4. The suit in O.S.No.1973/1986 was preferred by the plaintiffs against the defendants praying for a money Decree for a sum of Rs.41,401/-by way of refund of the advance consideration paid by him for the purpose of purchasing the property of the temple by name "Sundareshwarar Temple", Madras.
5. In the plaint in O.S.No.1973/1986, plaintiff inter-alia contended thus:-
(a) Defendants 1 to 3 are the trustees of the temple by name "Sundareshwarar Temple". They have entered into an Agreement with the plaintiff on 12.02.1983 agreeing to sell the property of the temple bearing D.No.20, Masudhi Street, Saidapet. As per the Agreement, the property was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of Rs.1 lakh. Defendants 1 to 3 also received a sum of Rs.10,001/-simultaneous with the execution of the Agreement. Subsequently, further amount of Rs.10,000/-and Rs.14,500/- were paid on 13.03.1983 and 14.07.1984 respectively. Advance consideration was received by the Defendants 1 to 3 in their capacity as trustees of the temple. On 14 March 1983, Defendants 1 to 3 made an application before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department seeking permission to sell the temple property. As per proceedings dated 17 March 1983, Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department called upon the trustees to inform the market value of the property. However, there was no follow up action to execute the Sale Deed on the basis of the Agreement, which made the plaintiff to send a notice to the Defendants on 29 October 1984.
(b) Notice was received by the Defendants 1 and 4. Notice sent to the Defendants 2 and 3 were returned un-served. The fourth defendant in his reply informed the plaintiff that he was not aware of any such transaction. In such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the purpose of getting back the amount paid by him.
6. The suit was contested by the Defendants. In the Written Statement filed by the first Defendant, it was contended thus :-
(a) Defendants 1 to 3 are the trustees of the temple. It is true that an agreement was entered into with the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 duly approached the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department seeking permission to sell the temple property. However, permission was not granted. On the other hand, the trustees were directed to sell the property by way of public auction. Auction was later notified on 18.06.1983 and as per the said notification, auction was scheduled to be held on 18.07.1984. Plaintiff was also aware of the auction notification. However, he has not taken any steps to take part in the public auction. Since the H.R. & C.E. Department did not grant permission for private sale, the trustees were not in a position to execute the Sale Deed and as such, plaintiff is not entitled for a Decree. Plaintiff has given only a sum of Rs.20,000/-. His contention that he has paid a further sum of Rs.14,500/-was against facts. The amount advanced by the plaintiff was deposited in the account of the temple maintained in the Saidapet Branch of the Indian Bank. The amount was subsequently spent for renovation of Gopuram, plastering and providing mosaic floor to the temple. The Executive Officer took charge of the temple from the trustees and as such, it was the fourth defendant who is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff.
7. In the Written Statement filed by the fourth defendant, it was contended thus :-
(a) The Executive Officer was not a party to the sale Agreement and as such, he was an unnecessary party to the suit. Before executing the sale Agreement in respect of the temple property, permission of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department [hereinafter referred to as th
