Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 37945
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
PONNAMBALAM CHETTIAR – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER – Respondent
W.P. NOS. 32937 & 46941 OF 2006 AND M.P. NOS. 1 OF 2008 & 2 OF 2006
Mr. R.Subramanian in WP No.32937/2006, Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, SC, for M/s. S.T.Bharath Gowtham in WP No.46941/2006, Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Spl. GP, HR & CE for RR-1 & 2, Ms. D.Kalaiselvi for R-3
The court established that properties dedicated for charitable purposes under the HR & CE Act cannot be alienated without prior approval, affirming the principle of absolute dedication for public trusts.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act - Sections 6(16) and 6(19) - Sale of properties held to be illegal due to lack of sanction and approval - Properties dedicated to temples for charitable purposes - The intention of the trust is paramount; properties deemed inalienable unless sanctioned by authorities. (Paras 3, 4, 42)
(B) Dedication of property - Absolute dedication versus partial dedication - The court emphasized that the true intention of the settlor must be determined by examining the documents as a whole, and the dedication must be complete for a public trust to exist. (Paras 28, 40)
(C) Forgery of documents - Allegations of forged partition deed affecting the legitimacy of property claims - The court found no evidence countering the claims of forgery, thus upholding the original dedication. (Paras 30, 44)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of properties partitioned from a family endowment for temple services, while the respondents argued the properties were dedicated and inalienable under the HR & CE Act.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the lower authority's decision that the properties were dedicated for public charity and could not be sold without proper sanction.
Issues: The main issues were whether the properties were absolutely dedicated to the temple and the legality of the sale without prior approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the properties were absolutely dedicated to the temple, thus attracting the provisions of the HR & CE Act, which prohibits alienation without permission.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
COMMON ORDER
Assailing the order of the 2nd respondent in and by which the order of the 2nd respondent relating to sale of the properties, which were held to be illegal in the absence of specific sanction and approval of the authorities, as they were Kattalai properties and for appointment of Fit person by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (for short ‘HR & CE Act’), while the seller had filed W.P. No.32937/2006, the buyer had filed W.P. No.46941/2006.
2. The facts in a nutshell, which are relevant for appreciation of the case of the petitioners are as under :-
It is the case of the petitioners that one Pralaya Ramalinga Chettiar Chatram is a private endowment, which was established for the performance of kattalais during certain festivals in particular temples by the family of the petitioners and their ancestors. Thereafter, by means of family partition, the properties in question, which were alleged to be in endowment to the temple, were partitioned in favour of the petitioners in W.P. No.32937/2006 and subsequent to the said partition, a portion of the properties were sold to the petitioner in W.P. No.46941/2006. Alleging that the said sale is illegal and is against the terms of the endowment, as the properties, which are the subject matter of issue, were completely dedicated to the temples, the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the 2nd respondent seeking to retrieve the properties endowed to the temples.
3. In the said petition, the 2nd respondent, after affording opportunity to the parties and perusing the materials placed before him, held that the intention of creation of trust is of paramount consideration and is the main criteria to decide the character of the trust and when the recitals in the document of the year 1923 and 1967 having revealed that the properties are inalienable, the sale of the properties in any manner by the heirs of the executors is null and void unless prior permission of the Commissioner and approval of the Government have been taken under the provisions of the HR & CE Act. Accordingly, while the 2nd respondent held that the sale is null and void, further directed that Fit person may be appointed by the appropriate authority for realising the properties which were sold without the permission of the 1st respondent and the Government.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in W.P. No.32937/2006, who are the heirs of Namachivayam Chettiar, while filed R.P. No.251/2005, while the petitioner in W.P. No.46941/2006, who is the purchaser of a portion of the said property filed R.P. No.263/2005. The 1st respondent, after due consideration of the materials, held that the properties were endowed for the performance of certain services, charities such as conduct of festival, abishekam, etc., in various Hindu temples and that there is an absolute dedication for performance of the charities which is revealed by the usage of words in the said endowment, which speaks about the intention of the executors and the said dedication being inalienable in view of the restriction imposed on the heirs of the executors of the deed, alienation is not permitted and, accordingly, confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.32937/2006 submitted that the performance of endowment would not attract Section 6 (119) of the HR & CE Act. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the in the rent deed of the year 1923, the property is described as a dwelling house of the family, which was treated as a choultry and that being the case, Section 3 (1) of the HR & CE Act has to be invoked.
6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the subsequent partition deed of the year 1967 clearly imposes upon the family members to perform certain charities in the templ
