Transactions regarding religious endowments must demonstrate absolute legal necessity and obtain prior authorization, or they will be deemed void such that any resulting deeds or certificates lack legal effect.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction challenges the concurrent findings rendered against them on the ground that the findings are perverse.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The 1st plaintiff, who is the deity of Pazhanchannur Devaswom Subramaniya Temple and the 2^nd plainti Chairman of the Board of Trustees managing the affairs of the 1st plaintiff filed a suit (O.S.No.304/2007) claiming recovery of possession in respect of 30¹/ cents of property belonging to the idol, which is challenged to have been mortgaged by the erstwhile trustee to the predecessor of the defendants in the year 1936. The claim of the defendants is based on a registered lease deed, which according to them have culminated into a purchase certificate issued by the land tribunal and thus conferring them right, title and exclusive possession over the property.

2.2. The plaintiffs contended that the original mortgage – lease in respect of the property is hit by Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 . In fact, the Board of Trustees of Sri. Pazhanchannur Devaswom filed W.P. (C)No.35953/2005 before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the authorities to grant permission challenging the order of the RDO under Section 10 (ii) of the Malabar Land Registration Act, 1895 . A Division Bench of this Court directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to accord permission to the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of possession and accordingly, the present suit was filed.

2.3. In the suit, the plaintiffs contended that the document executed in the year 1936 cannot confer any status of lessee, but rather it was a case of mortgage, which is hit by Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 . The defendants resisted the suit by raising a contention that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief because the lessee under the 1936 document had executed a Will in favour of his wife and subsequently, defendants 1 to 3 had obtained the purchase certificate in respect of the property. Before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A10 documents were produced and PW1 was examined and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B21 documents were produced and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 to C2(b) are the commission reports and plans filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to show that, as on the date of execution of Ext.A3 lease deed, there was no evidence to show that the property in question was belonging to the temple which was listed under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 . The trial court also found that the lease in question is not hit by Section 3 (1)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

2.4. Aggrieved, the 1st plaintiff preferred A.S.No.140/2012 before the Additional District Court-II, Kozhikode, which was also dismissed by the first appellate court on 30.08.2014 and hence, the present appeal.

3. On 02.02.2015 this Court framed the following substantial questions of law.

i) Whether a hereditary trustee of a religious endowment by virtue of provisions in the H