Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
M/s. Super Good Films Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director R.B. Choudhary & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 7220 of 2022 & W.M.P. Nos. 7246 & 7247 of 2022
Decided On : 06-06-2022
CITY TENANTS PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 9 - SALE OF LAND - APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER - NECESSITY - HR & CE ACT - SECTION 34 - APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER - NECESSITY - TEMPLE LANDS - SALE - APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER - NECESSITY - COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUSTEE AND TENANT - APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER - NECESSITY - SALE DEED - EXECUTION - APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER - NECESSITY - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - REFUSAL - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, who is the buyer of the property, challenged the impugned order of refusal to register the sale deed presented by him, on the ground that the 2nd respondent has requested the 3rd respondent not to entertain any documents for registration pertaining to the temple properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the non-compliance of Section 34 of the HR & CE Act would render the sale void, even if the said sale has been at the instance of the Court, as even the trial court cannot restrict the plaintiff from obtaining the requisite permission as mandated u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act.
Issues: Whether the non-compliance of Section 34 of the HR & CE Act would render the sale void, even if the said sale has been at the instance of the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the approval u/s 34 is a mandatory condition to be followed by the Trust irrespective of the order of the court below directing execution of the sale deed. Further, it is to be pointed out that complying with the condition u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act would in no way have a bearing on the order u/s 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, if really the order had been passed in consideration of all the materials.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed; The alienation of the lands by way of sale to the tenants, viz., the vendors of the 2nd petitioner by the trustees of the temple as ordered in I.A. No.15824/87 in O.S.No.5802/1987 is perverse and unreasonable and the said sale is accordingly set aside; The subsequent sale entered into by the vendors of the 2nd petitioner with the 2nd petitioner and the further sale of the said lands by the 2nd to the 1st petitioner are without any valid title and the said sale transactions are declared as void. In view of the cancellation of sale entered into between the temple and the tenants, viz., the vendors of the 2nd petitioner, the order passed by the 3rd respondent does not suffer the vice of any illegality and the same is confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings more specifically the Refusal Order No.60 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to again present the returned sale deed dated 8.12.2021 for registration.) Assailing the impugned order of refusal to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners, who are the buyer and seller of the property, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property situate at Door No.7, Jayalakshmipuram 3rd Street, Seetha Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai, comprised in Survey Nos.341, 477/18, 477 (Part), Nungambakkam Village, belonged to Arulmigu Agastheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Thirukkoil and the predecessors in-title, viz., N.Meeran and N.Sheriff, were the tenants in the aboe referred to property. The hereditary trustee of the temple, viz., Valliammal, filed a suit for possession against the predecessors in-title, after terminating the tenancy, in O.S. No.5802 of 1987 before the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The predecessors in-title to the petitioners, claimed protection u/s 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act by filing I.A. No.15824 of 1987 in O.S. No.5802 of 1987 and by order dated 29.3.1990, the court directed the temple to execute the sale deed in favour of the predecessors in-title to the petitioner.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that further to the said order, sale deed in Document No.806/1990 dated 11.10.1990 was executed by the hereditary trustee, viz., Valliammal in favour of Meeran and Sheriff, S/o Nagarkani. It is the further case of the 1st petitioner that the said Meeran and Sheriff are none other than the predecessors in-title of the 2nd petitioner.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner purchased the property from the said Meeran and Sheriff by way of a registered sale deed in Document No.782 of 1992 dated 27.6.1992. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner, since the purchase of the property in the year 1992, has been paying all the taxes to the Government, including property tax, water tax, etc. and that the patta stands mutated in the name of the 2nd petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner intended to settle the property in favour of her daughter by executing a settlement deed, which, when presented, was returned along with a refusal letter dated 13.9.2021 stating that the 2nd respondent has requested the 3rd respondent not to entertain any documents for registration pertaining to the temple properties comprised in survey Nos.359, 451, 452, 465, 466, 467, 469, 472, 477 and 480 situated at Nungambakkam Village.
5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 2nd petitioner, when approached respondents 1 and 2, came to learn that the pendency of the contempt petition No.1331 of 2019, the requisition made to the 3rd respondent cannot be revoked. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner has been closely following the proceedings and learnt that Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019 was closed by this Court on 21.10.2021. Once again, the petitioner gave a representation stating that W.P. No.9336 of 2018 as also the Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019 have attained finality and, therefore, the 2nd respondent may recall the requisition given to the 3rd respondent. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, the 2nd petitioner filed W.P. No.25544 of 2021 assailing the impugned check slip and this Court by order dated 1.12.2021 directed the 3rd respondent to register the settlement deed after conducting an enquiry.
6. Pending the said enquiry, the 2nd petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner, which is kept as pending Document dated 8.12.2021.
Approval of the Commissioner under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act is mandatory for the sale of temple lands, even if the sale is pursuant to an order passed by the court under Section 9 of the City Te....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of alienation of temple properties without proper sanction under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, rendering suc....
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....
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
Plaintiffs must prove the validity of property transactions under the HR & CE Act, and the failure to produce adequate evidence resulted in the dismissal of their suit.
The court held that a sale of a superstructure on land belonging to a religious institution is invalid without specific sanction, impacting leasehold rights and the legitimacy of injunction claims.
The Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act does not apply to tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or charities, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The court ruled that the lease of temple property was unjustifiable due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and lack of necessity, emphasizing the prioritization of temple interests over pu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
