Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
G. Nanda & Ors. - Respondents
A.S. Nos. 423 & 925 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 08-01-2024
C.P.C. - Property Dispute - S.80 C.P.C., S.108 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [C.P.C. S.80, S.108] - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property, the issuance of notice under S.80 C.P.C., and the maintainability of the suit under S.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The court found that the suit property belonged to the temple, the notice under S.80 C.P.C. was not issued to the public officer, and the suit was not maintainable under S.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The court set aside the judgment and decree passed in the trial court and dismissed the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property and filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants contested the claim, asserting that the property belonged to the temple and the plaintiff was an encroacher. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property belonged to the temple, the notice under S.80 C.P.C. was not issued to the public officer, and the suit was not maintainable under S.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The court set aside the judgment and decree passed in the trial court and dismissed the suit.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the suit property, the issuance of notice under S.80 C.P.C., and the maintainability of the suit under S.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit property belonged to the temple, the notice under S.80 C.P.C. was not issued to the public officer, and the suit was not maintainable under S.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and decree passed in the trial court and dismissed the suit.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11029 of 2010 dated 04.10.2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai. Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11029 of 2010 dated 04.10.2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai.)
1. Both the Appeal Suits have been filed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.10.2010, passed in O.S.No.11029 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai, thereby allowed the suit for declaration and injunction with cost.
2. The first respondent in both appeals is the plaintiff and the appellants and other respondents in both appeals are defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that she is an absolute owner of the property situated at Door No.206, (old No.63) Valluvarkottam High Road, comprised in C.C.No.485, O.S.No.185, R.S.No.451/7, Block No.28, Nungambakkam Village, Chennai (hereinafter called as “the suit property”). She purchased the said property from legal heirs of one Balakrishnan, by the registered sale deed dated 30.03.1995 vide document No.482/95. After purchase, the plaintiff obtained permission for demolition and reconstruction and also paid requisite fees. Just behind the suit property, there is a vast extent of land belonging to the third defendant temple. There was encroachment by several general public by putting up pucca construction. They have also unauthorizedly formed private passage therein called Chokkattan salai. It is a private passage and it is not maintained by the Corporation of Chennai viz., fourth defendant herein. The resident of Chokkattan salai used the unauthorized private passage to reach Valluvarkottam High Road.
3.1. While being so, the encroachers have also attempted to encroach the suit property. One of the encroachers called Shanmugam filed suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.3893 of 2001 for permanent injunction as against the plaintiff thereby restraining her from putting up construction in the suit property alleging that the suit property is a temple land. Subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn by the said Shanmugam and the same was dismissed. However, they didn't allow the plaintiff to put up construction as per the planning permission. Therefore, the plaintiff lodged complaint and also approached this Court seeking police protection in Crl.O.P.No.5570 of 2002.
3.2. The encroachers also formed an association in the name and style of Chokkattan Salai Kudiyirupor Nala Sangam, who is arrayed as fifth defendant, with intention to grab the property of the plaintiff. The fifth defendant also filed writ petition in W.P.No.21231 of 2001 before this Court alleging that the suit property belongs to the third defendant temple. Further the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file suit. Even then, the plaintiff could not put up construction and filed a suit in O.S.No.6102 of 2001 as against the encroachers for injunctions. Though, the plaintiff obtained interim injunction, she could not proceed with construction and as such the plaintiff filed police protection petition in the same suit. However the concerned jurisdictional police failed to give any police protection to proceed with the construction.
3.3. Thereafter, the encroachers submitted representation before the District Collector to cancel the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff. Without considering the explanation submitted by the plaintiff, the District Collector cancelled the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed writ petit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of property ownership, the requirement of notice under S.80 C.P.C., and the maintainability of the suit under S.108 of the Hindu ....
The main legal point established is that the suit filed by the Executive Officer was maintainable, and the plaintiff, as the lawful owner, was entitled to recover possession from the defendant, who w....
A suit for recovery of possession against a lessee is premature without formal termination of the lease under the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, revenue settlement proceedings do not negate the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Officer has the right to file a suit for temple properties, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the prop....
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
The court ruled that rightful ownership evidenced through proper documentation takes precedence over claims of adverse possession by the defendant regarding property allegedly belonging to a temple.
The court established that a sale deed transferring property of a deity without proper authorization is invalid, making recovery suits unmaintainable if the deity is not a party.
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
