The requirement of prior sanction for sale of temple properties under the TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959, and the legal principle that an agreement to sell does not convey valid title.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree passed by the Sub Ordinate Court, at Poonamallee, dated 02.03.2007 in A.S.No.51 of 2005 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, at Poonamallee dated 29.07.2005 in O.S.No.393 of 1993.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007 passed in A.S.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.393 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamlee.

2. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court. The plaintiff in O.S.No.393 of 1993 is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. Suit for recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties described in the plaint schedule and the defendants approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit properties and the defendants offered to purchase the suit properties for a sum of Rs.120 per cent and paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff on 24.06.1981 and the sale deed is to be executed in favour of the defendants by the plaintiff after obtaining necessary permission from the HR&CE Board, Commissioner. The plaintiff has placed the defendants in the possession of the suit properties on 24.06.1981 and there is no concluded and completed contract or agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants and it is only at a proposal stage as the agreement will come into existence only after obtaining sanction from the HR&CE Board. The HR&CE Board has not sanctioned the abovesaid proposal and therefore the defendantss are liable to surrender the vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The suit properties are lying vacant without any superstructure and the plaintiff apprehend that the defendants and his members may cut and carry away the standing trees and also put up the superstructure over the suit properties which may cause hardship to the plaintiff. Hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to institute the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The second defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties and it is true that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the second defendant on 24.06.1981 for the sale of the suit properties at the rate of Rs.120 per cent and also received the entire sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- on that date itself and put the second defendant in possession of the suit properties. The second defendant also took the possession of the suit properties and he had been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, pursuant to the abovesaid sale agreement and inasmuch as, the second defendant has paid the entire sale consideration, the execution and registration of the sale deed is only a formal and an administrative act and therefore the allegations of the plaintiff that the sale deed is to be executed only after obtaining the necessary permission from HR&CE Board, that there is no concluded and completed contract or agreement and the transaction between the plaintiff and the second defendant is only a proposal and that the agreement will come into existence only after obtaining the sanction from HR&CE Board are untenable and the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant is a valid and concluded contract and binding upon the plaintiff. The absence of permission from HR&CE Board will not vitiate the lawful agreement abovestated. In fact the Deputy Commissioner of HR&CE Board recommended the proposal by his letter dated 10.11.1982 to the Commissioner, HR&CE Board and the Commissioner had also accepted the proposal and he only wanted to to have clarification about the price, hence all the formalities have been complied with and the sanction was not done due to certain