Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL
Selvaraj (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Arulmigu Sreenivasa Perumal Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer and Trustees – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated December 16, 2016 made by the ‘VI Additional Judge, VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai’ ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.494 of 2011, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated November 21, 2007 of the 'learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for short] made in O.S.No.8140 of 1993 was set aside.
2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be de-noted as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS CASE:
3. ‘Arulmigu Sreenivasa Perumal Devasthanam’ [‘Devasthanam’ for brevity] is a Denominational Temple belonging to the Sadhu Chetty Community. In view of Section 107 of the ' TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1959' ['HR & CE Act' for brevity], Devasthanam’s autonomy is vouchsafed by the Constitution of India. The Commissioner and the Officials of the ‘Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department’ ['HR & CE Department' for short] have only a regulatory and supervisory control. The power of management is vested with the Board of Trustees constituted under the Scheme Decree passed by this High Court i
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 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 HR & CE Department is a necessary party in title disputes involving temple properties, and amendments to include declarations must be timely filed within the limitation period.
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
An exchange deed executed by alleged trustees of a deity without proper authority is valid under current jurisdictional provisions; the High Court's review is limited to substantial questions of law ....
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 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.
The duty of the Executive Officer to protect the temple's property and the entitlement of the temple in case of mismanagement were central legal principles established in the judgment.
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
