Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 692
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Vijayakumar, J.
Seethai & Another – Petitioners
Versus
The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department & Another – Respondents
W.P.(MD). Nos. 13052 of 2011 & 12953 of 2012 & MP(MD). Nos. 2 of 2011 and 2 & 3 of 2012
Decided On : 14-07-2022
For the Petitioner:K. Baalasundaram, A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the disputed property as either endowed or private, based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Property Dispute - O.S.No.92 of 1991, S.A.No.1760 of 1997 - The court held that the disputed property is not an endowed property, but the private property of one Somanathan Chettiar.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the first respondent, directing the Sub Registrar not to register any document relating to a specific property. The petitioners claim to have purchased the property and are challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed property is not an endowed property, but the private property of one Somanathan Chettiar. The impugned orders passed by the first respondent in both the writ petitions were set aside and the writ petitions were allowed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disputed property was an endowed property or private property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and held that the property was not an endowed property, but the private property of one Somanathan Chettiar.
Final Decision: The impugned orders passed by the first respondent in both the writ petitions were set aside. The writ petitions were allowed and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
ORDER :
(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5033/2009/A3 dated 11.10.2011 and quash the same.
This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.5033/2009/m3 dated 11.01.2011 and Na.Ka.No. 5033/2009/A3 dated 02.08.2012 in respect of registration of lands in Survey No.72/1B of Somanathamangalam Group, Kalayarkoil Village, Sivagangai District and the proceedings of the second respondent herein under Memorandum dated 14.08.2012 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to forthwith receive and register the Gift Settlement Deed dated 13.08.2012 executed and presented by the petitioner in favour of his wife, Mrs.G.Savari Ammal and return the said document after registration to the petitioner.)
1. The above writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the first respondent herein under which he has requested the Sub Registrar of Kalayarkoil Sub Registrar Office not to register any document relating to Survey No.72/1B in Somanathamangalam Village, Sivagangai District.
2. The writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.12953 of 2012 has purchased the property from the writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.13052 of 2011. Hence, both the petitioners are sailing together and they are challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai District.
3. The common case of the petitioners is that Survey No.72/1B of Somanathamangalam Village, Sivagangai Taluk is the ancestral property of one S.M.Narayanan Chettiar. The said S.M.Narayanan Chettiar had sold the entire extent in Survey No.72/1B under a registered sale deed dated 10.04.1990 in favour of one Sandhiyahu. In turn the said Sandhiyahu had sold the property in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13052 of 2011 by means of registered sale deed on 05.12.1996. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.13052 of 2011 namely Seethai is said to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties. According to the said Seethai, patta has been mutated in her name and Chitta has also been issued in her name.
4. The petitioners have further submitted that the second respondent in W.P.(MD).No.13052 of 2011 one A.R.Narayanan Chettiar had filed O.S.No. 75 of 1994 against the predecessor in title S.M.Narayanan Chettiar for the relief of partition. In the said suit, a compromise decree was passed and the entire Survey No.72/1B was allotted in favour of the said S.M.Narayanan Chettiar.
5. The petitioner had further contended that Arulmighu Sornakaaleeswarar Temple had filed O.S.No.92 of 1991 before the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai for the relief of declaration that the suit schedule property belongs to the temple and it has been specifically endowed in favour of the temple. The temple had further prayed that the possession of the suit schedule property should be recovered from Narayanan Chettiar, Subbiah Chettiar and Sandhiyahu. According to the plaintiff temple, in the said suit, defendants 1 and 2 namely Narayanan Chettiar and Subbiah Chettiar are trustees and Sandhiyahu namely the third defendant is the purchaser from them. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the trial Court on 09.12.1993. Thereafter, the defendants therein filed A.S.No.72 of 1995 before the Principal District Court, Sivagangai. The learned Principal District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff temple had filed S.A.No.1760 of 1997 before this Court. In Paragraph No.23 of the said judgement, this Court held that it is not an endowed property, but it is the separate property of one Somanathan Chettiar. That judgment has become final. Hence,
