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
| 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 Ch
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 ....
A deity, being a perpetual minor, holds title to its assets; a worshipper may institute a suit as a next friend to recover property when a trustee acts fraudulently or fails to protect the trust, all....
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.
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
