Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15328
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Sathyanarayanan – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar – Respondent
Joint ownership of land and building established under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act does not confer the right to register power of attorney over property when the site remains with another party.
Headnote:
Property - Property Ownership - Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Section 13 - The joint patta granted under the Act does not confer ownership of the site to the lessees, thereby influencing the court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's claim for registration of power of attorney over temple land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of a power of attorney registration related to property once owned by their family, claiming rights based on a joint patta issued with the temple; the respondents argued the temple owned the site and retained rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the refusal to register the power of attorney, stating the petitioner did not acquire ownership of the land beneath the property through joint patta and thus lacked rights to execute documents concerning it.
Issues: Whether the joint patta granted in favor of the petitioner's mother and the temple confers absolute title to the petitioner to deal with the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The ownership of the land and the building can be separate due to joint patta provisions; the temple retains ownership of the site, preventing the registration of documents that seek to transfer rights over it.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed with no costs.
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the refusal slip issued by the respondent refusing to register the power of attorney presented by the petitioner on the ground that there is no previous document and also the property belongs to the temple.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property measuring 4240 sq.ft., comprised in Old Survey No.154/3, T.S.No.8983, Block No.130 of T.Nagar Village, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District belonged to one Mr.K.V.Panchatcharaiyer and the said property was transferred to one Lakshmikanthammal vide transfer deed dated 31.01.1959, leaving behind her only daughter namely Bharathiammal, who also obtained a Ryotwari Patta in her name issued by the Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk vide C.A.No.330/1986. She died on 05.03.2005, leaving behind her daughters Mrs.Ranibai @ Rani, Mrs.Rosibai, Mrs.Karthikeyani @ Sampathkumari, Mrs.Kalavathy and her son, the petitioner. They are in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the property with 1/5th share each. When all of them executed a power of attorney dated 13.10.2022 in favour of one P.Ayyappa Rao and sought to register, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the property belonged to temple. Challenging the said order, this writ petition on the ground that the Settlement Officer had already upheld the rights of their mother as early as on
25.05.1971.
3. Counter has been filed by the respondents. It is the contention of the first respondent that while presenting the Power of Attorney, title deed has not been produced and the second respondent has objected to the registration of any document on the ground that Bharathi Ammal is a lessee and since, the lease period came to an end, the building therein was also demolished. According to them, the land exclusively belongs to the second respondent Temple. The property was utilised for commercial purpose and the ground rent was not paid, the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.24/2008 seeking for removal of the building in the said land to get vacant possession of the property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the second respondent and the first appeal filed by the legal heirs of Bharathiammal against the decree in A.S.No.23/2013 was allowed. Challenging the judgment of the first appellate court, second appeal is filed before this Court and the same is pending. Hence, it is their contention that the first respondent cannot register the transfer deed in respect of the property that belong to the temple under the HR & CE Act.
4. It is the contention of the second respondent that the property was originally leased out to Panchanatha Iyer, thereafter, the lease-holder-right was transferred to Mrs.Lakshmikanthammal. After the death of the Lakshmikanthammal, her only daughter Bharathiammal succeeded the lease- hold-right and she used to pay the rent to the temple during her lifetime. She died in the year 2005, the petitioner is only a lessee and owner of the building which was constructed by their predecessor and the second respondent temple is the owner of the site. It was declared by the Settlement Tahsildar by order dated 25.05.1971 and thereafter the lessees have filed a revision against the said order before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu on 29.09.1972 and the same was dismissed. It is the contention that the order of the Settlement Tahsildar will not give any right to the lessees except the lease- hold-right over the building and the lessees do not have right over the site. Therefore, when the site belonging to the temple, Section 22-A of the Registration Act bars transfer of such property.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that in settlement proceedings, a joint patta has been issued under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour of the petitioner's mother and temple/second respondent. Hence, the building will always vest with the own
