Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Ramasamy Nadar - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 20944 of 2019 & WMP No. 20129 of 2019
Decided On : 30-11-2020
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Karthikeyan, Special Government Pleader, V. Srikanth, Learned Counsel, R3, T.M. Pappiah, Special Government Pleader.
The right or title over the property must be established before a competent Civil court.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Property Dispute - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [OM No.19671/2019-2/V2 dated 12.04.2019, proceedings No. 964/A1/2019 dated 25.05.2019] - The court quashed the impugned check slip and directed the concerned Sub-registrar to entertain the documents for registration pertaining to the subject property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned check slip and direct the registration of a sale deed for a property. The property was subject to a dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 2nd respondent temple's claim over the property had been rejected by a competent Civil court in earlier proceedings, and the impugned check slip was quashed.
Issues: Dispute over property title, refusal of registration based on objections by the 2nd respondent temple, and the legality of the impugned check slip.
Ratio Decidendi: The 2nd respondent's claim over the property had been rejected in earlier proceedings, and the impugned check slip was quashed as the 2nd respondent's right or title over the property had to be established before a competent Civil court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned check slip, and directed the concerned Sub-registrar to entertain the documents for registration pertaining to the subject property.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in respect to OM No.19671/2019-2/V2 dated 12.04.2019 and consequential order on the file of 3rd respondent in proceedings No. 964/A1/2019 dated 25.05.2019 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect to survey no.29/1A1, Thiruvathipuram, Thiruvannamalai District.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned check slip confirmed by the 3rd respondent, dated 20.05.2019 and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner with respect to the subject property.
2. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The subject property situated in S. 29/1A1 measuring an extent of 4.98 acers, originally belonged to one Bheema Rao and Narahari Rao. They have sold this property to one Dharma Gounder through a registered sale deed dated 10.06.1950. The property thereafter vested on the legal heirs of the Dharma Gounder. The petitioner purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1986. Certain other portions were also sold in favor of the brothers of the petitioner.
3. The 2nd respondent temple filed a suit against the petitioner and his brothers in O.S No. 187 of 2002 for the relief of possession and to declare the approval granted by the municipality, in favour of the petitioner and others as illegal. This suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, an application was filed in IA No. 1048 and 1049 of 2008 for restoration of the suit and to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the suit and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 12.10.2010.
4. There were certain other properties available in the very same survey No 29/1, wherein Bheema Rao had sold the same in favour of one Mr. Kuttiyappan in the year 1959. The 2nd respondent temple asserted the title over the property on the ground that Bheema Rao’s family do not have any right over the property and they cannot sell the property. This became a subject matter of dispute before the Civil court in the year 1964. Ultimately, the matter reached this Court in SA No. 430 in 1976 and this Court decided the case in favour of the said Kuttiyappan. Thereby, the claim made by the 2nd respondent temple stood rejected by the competent Civil Court. These proceedings are heavily relied upon by the petitioner and the petitioner claims that the 2nd respondent temple cannot again and again ascertain their right over the property and prevent the owners of the property from dealing with the same.
5. The petitioner presented a sale deed for registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar and the concerned Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed based on the objections given by the 2nd respondent temple. The impugned check slip issued by the concerned sub-registrar came to be confirmed by the 3rd respondent and aggrieved by the same, the present Writ petition has been filed before this Court.
6. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this case and the relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:-
9. I am advised to submit that, such endeavour was not correct, as there was no effort to find out the correctness of the first Appellate Court granting the plaintiff’s claim pleaded by them in the suit. Upon remand, the first Appellate Court found that the Plaintiff’s Predecessor-in-Title were not trustees of the temple and such findings was sent to the Hon’ble High Court in the pending S.A.No.430/1976. The Hon’ble High Court only on the said limited question, held that since the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff were not trustees of the Temple, they would have acquired title to the property by adverse possession. Upon such assumption, the 2nd appeal f
