IMPORTANT POINT
A sale of property by a religious trust without the necessary sanction is void ab initio, and a plaintiff can seek recovery of possession without a declaration of title when their ownership is not in dispute.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

[PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2018 passed in A.S. No.70 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2012 made in O.S. No.728 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur.]

The defendant who suffered a decree for possession and removal of superstructure in a suit filed by Thiruvannamalai Kundrakudi Adheenam as plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The parties are described as per the litigative status before the Trial Court. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.728 of 2004 for the relief by way of direction to the defendant to remove the superstructure and to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff Mutt.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the plaintiff is a religious trust and absolute owner of the suit property. One Mr. Shanmugam Sundaram Pillai, claiming to be the agent of the plaintiff mutt sold several plots belonging to the mutt and one such plot was purchased by the defendant. The defendant has also put up construction on the land so purchased through the said Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai. On coming to know of the high handed acts of persons like Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai, the plaintiff mutt caused extensive enquiry to be made and initiated action. The defendant had purchased one such plot through Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai, through Mary Isabel, the defendant in O.S.No.429 of 2000. The said Mary Isabel filed Writ Petitions before this Court, where she succeeded. However, the Commissioner HR&CE preferred Writ Appeals 1198 and 1199 of 1983 and the Division Bench of this Court on 01.11.1988 set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and held that unless sanction is granted by the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., the sale would be void ab-initio. The Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner HR&CE to reconsider the matter in the light of Sec.34 of the HR&CE Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner considered the entire matter and on 26.04.1989, rejected the application for sanction of sale of the suit property. The defendant was not only bound by the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, but also the consequent order of the Commissioner HR&CE. Further she was fully aware of all the proceedings. The plaintiff was therefore entitled for recovery of possession from the defendant who was not a bonafide purchaser from Mary Isabel.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the defendant was a bonafide purchaser for consideration and she has purchased the suit property only pursuant to a layout formed for the benefit of the plaintiff mutt. The defendant has put up construction after obtaining planning permission from the authorities concerned and has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property in her own right and was therefore not liable or obliged to either remove the superstructure or hand over vacant possession of the suit property.

5. Before the Trial Court, one Mr. Suba Vaidhyanathan was examined as P.W.1 and exhibits Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendants one Alivar Ravi was examined as D.W.1 and exhibits Ex.B1 to B13 were marked.

6. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as prayed for and consequently decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred A.S.No.70 of 2012 and the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

7. On 06.01.2020, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

“(a) Without seeking the relief of declaration, to declare that the Sale Deed dated 09.05.1983 is null and void, whether the Respondent Thiruvannamalai Kundrakudi Adheenam can claim for recovery of possession, that too after 21 years, much less when there has been no order revoking or ca