Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M/s. Amaravathi Finance & Investments, Represented by its Proprietor K. Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Office, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 1789 of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 1903 of 2023
Decided On : 10-07-2023
Registration Act - Endowment Property - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 22A of the Registration Act - The court dismissed the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, which objected to the registration of sale deeds based on the endowment created through a will. The court held that the properties were endowed for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies in a temple and refused registration of documents, emphasizing that the endowment created through the will must be honored and performed as per the wishes of the executor.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition challenged the order objecting to the registration of sale deeds based on the endowment created through a will. The petitioner claimed exclusive ownership of the property and argued that they were not connected with the endowment created through the will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties were endowed for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies in a temple and refused registration of documents. It emphasized that the endowment created through the will must be honored and performed as per the wishes of the executor.
Issues: The main issue was whether the properties could be registered without honoring the endowment created through the will and whether the petitioner could claim exclusive ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the properties were endowed for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies in a temple and refused registration of documents, emphasizing that the endowment created through the will must be honored and performed as per the wishes of the executor.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach the authorities of the HR&CE Department for fulfilling the endowments or obtaining a no objection certificate.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order of the 3rd respondent dated 02.03.2022 in R.C.No.15/2022 and quash the same, in so far as it relates to Survey No.217 and its sub divisions and direct the 4th respondent to receive the sale deeds presented by the petitioner for registration, if it is otherwise in order.)
The Writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the third respondent.
2. The order impugned passed by the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is an objection raised under Section 22A of the Registration Act and communicated to the Sub-Registrar concerned. Based on the objection raised by the third respondent, the registering authority is empowered to refuse any registration in view of Section 22A of the Registration Act.
3. The petitioner states that they are the absolute owners of the property morefully described in the present Writ Petition. They have purchased the property by paying the sale consideration. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that they are no way connected with the endowment created through the will by the executor, who is the original owner of the property. The existence of the will and the probate done thereafter are not in dispute between the parties.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in O.S.Appeal No.139 of 1994, the Hon''ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, in its judgement and decree dated 02.12.1997, decreed that the reversioners are entitled to enjoy possession and declared that the Schedule A mentioned properties therein are the absolute properties of the said reversioners. The appellants therein are the reversioners and the remaining properties were given to the executor Mr.T.S.Rangachari, by recording the joint memo of compromise filed by both the parties therein.
5. Thus, it is clear that the Original Side Appeal was decided based on the joint compromise memo filed between the parties and there was no adjudication of issues on merits in the said OSA. Even as per the joint memo of compromise filed between the parties, in paragraph 7, it is unambiguously stated "that all the properties detailed in B Schedule shall exclusively belong to and be under the sole possession, enjoyment and management of the respondent Mr.T.S.Rangachari and shall be entitled to administer them as he pleases in charitable purposes." Therefore, it is clear that an exclusive right was conferred to hold and enjoy the property. While so, the Court itself has stated that the respondent T.S.Rangachari shall be entitled to administer them as be pleases the charitable purposes. Thus, the order passed in the OSA states that the parties may hold the property exclusively but the charitable purposes are also to be carried on as per the wishes of the executor of the will.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that the petitioners have been given A Scheduled property, which is no way connected with the charitable purposes.
7. The properties cannot be segregated because the endowment was created jointly with reference to all the properties through the will dated 16.11.1971. Pertinently, the portion of the will reads as under:-
"The aforesaid T.S.Rangachariar shall be the executor, and after my life-time, shall take absolutely all my properties in the capacity as executor, and carry out the Charities stated by me therein, suitably out of the nett income derived from them.
Out of the income got from the remaining properties (i.e.,) from those that remain after excluding the properties to be enjoyed personally by the respective individuals out of the properties, got by me after the death of my mother late Ethirajam
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inalienability of specifically endowed properties for religious purposes and the bar on alienation of Trust property under the TNHR&CE Act, 195....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of the properties for the performance of Naivedyam service to the temple constituted a specific endowment, and the application ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, a property dedicated for charitable activities cannot be alienated, and an....
A dedication of property for religious purposes can be established through intent and conduct, even in the absence of formal documentation, and such dedication constitutes a public religious charity ....
The court established that determinations regarding the nature of endowments must be made under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, not under the Indian Trust Act, when the a....
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
