Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Selvaraj (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Arulmigu Sreenivasa Perumal Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer and Trustees – Respondent
S.A.NO.801 OF 2017 AND CMP NO.20108 OF 2017
Decided on : 15-10-2024
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Dispute
Act Referred
MADRAS CITY TENANTS PROTECTION ACT: S.1, S.9
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT: S.107, S.109, S.34, S.45, S.6(9), S.77, S.78
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.20 R.5
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claim ownership over temple property and assert that a Sale Deed executed in 1986 is void on the grounds of fraud and improper authorization by the Executive Officer -- Defendants contest their status as trustees and assert validity of the earlier proceedings. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs failed to prove compliance with necessary legal procedures regarding the Sale Deed—consequently, the original trial court's decision to dismiss the suit is upheld. The suit was found maintainable but was ultimately dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims. (Paras 32.1, 33)
Issues: 1) Validity of the Sale Deed in light of the HR & CE Act; 2) Burden of proof regarding the alleged fraud and collusion; 3) Maintainability of plaintiffs' suit given prior judicial findings. (Paras 8, 32.1)
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiffs must substantiate their claims with appropriate documentary evidence to prove fraud or misconduct -- Failure to present required evidence undermines their position, leading to dismissal of their suit despite its maintainability on procedural grounds. (Paras 28, 32.1, 32.4)
Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, the previous decree is set aside, and the Original Suit is dismissed, granting plaintiffs the opportunity to refile with appropriate corrections. (Paras 33)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Saravanan
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Ramamoorthy Mr.R.Chakaravarthy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions of plaintiffs and defendants. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellants and respondents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's observations on maintainability and burden of proof. (Para 12 , 13 , 20 , 25) |
| 5. the significance of procedural compliance with statutory norms. (Para 22) |
| 6. ratios on alienation compliance under hr & ce act. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 7. final decision and terms for appeal dismissal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
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 in C.S.No.553 of 1928. The Plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 were appointed as Trustees of the first plaintiff - Devasthanam by this High Court in W.P.No.15564 of 1989 and they assumed charge on January 22, 1991. The Suit Property solely belonged to the first plaintiff - Devasthanam.
3.1. Upon assuming charge, the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 came to know that one of the then Executive Officer inducted certain persons as lessees in the outer prakaram within the campus of the Devasthanam for carrying on business by putting up superstructures there. One late K. Parthasarathy is one such lessee who had taken the Suit Property for lease and built a superstructure thereupon.
3.2. The then Executive Officer collusively and fraudulently filed a Suit for ejectment in ‘O.S.No.6699 of 1980 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai’ (henceforth 'earlier Suit') in order to afford an opportunity to late K. Parthasarathy to invoke the provision under Section 9 of 'the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921' [in short 'MCTP Act'] (now the MCTP Act has been renamed into ‘Chennai City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921’). In the earlier Suit, the said Parthasarathy has filed an ‘Interlocutory Application, numbered as I.A.No.5376 of 1981, under Section 9 of the MCTP Act praying to direct the Executive Officer to sell the Suit Property in his favour’ (‘said Interlocutory Application’ for short). The then Executive Officer, being in collusion with late K. Parthasarathy, did not properly contest the said Interlocutory Application. An Order was passed in the said Interlocutory Application, and on the strength of the said Order, the Sale Deed dated December 9, 1986 was executed without complying the procedure contemplated under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act. Further, the Sale Deed was not communicated to the Commissioner of HR & CE Department by the then Executive Officer to enable the Commissioner to intervene into the matter, and to file an appeal in time.
3.3. The then Executive Officer had no power to file the earlier Suit as well as to lease out the land to late K. Parthasarathy in contravention of Sections 34 , 77, 78 and 107 of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated December 9, 1986 executed in favour of the first defendant's father – late K. Parthasarathy is invalid, non-est and vo
