Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs C.Jawahar Abbasamy on 3 September, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
and
W.M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Nachiyar (Andal) Temple,
Srivilliputtur,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant /
3rd Respondent
Vs.
1. C.Jawahar Abbasamy
2. J.Rajeswari
3. Geethalakshmi
4. Ambika ... Respondents 1 to 4 /
Petitioners
5. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
6. The Sub-Registrar,
Karivalamvandanallur,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents 5 & 6 /
Respondents 1 & 2
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5244 of
2011.dated 19.02.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.S.Natarajan
(R1 to R4)
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
(R5 and R6) Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was made by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the
Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.5244 of 2011, dated
19.02.2013.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the respondents 2 to 5
herein, challenging the order passed by the Sub-Registrar, the 6th
respondent herein, refusing to register the sale deed executed by the
petitioners, on the ground that there is a title dispute between the appellant
herein and the writ petitioners and the temple has filed objection for
registering the documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
3. The case of the writ petitioners is that the land in dispute
originally belongs to one Alagar Iyangar, who said to have executed the
settlement deed on 23.10.1911, making arrangements to perform 'Unjal
Urchavakattalai' for 'Arulmigu Nachiyar (Andal) Temple', at Srivilliputhur.
After his death, the legal heirs succeeded the estate and they have
performing the 'Kattalai' continuously. The writ petitioners said to have
purchased the property from the legal heirs of the Ramanuja Iyengar, who
inherited the property from Alagar Iyengar, in the year 1990. According to
the writ petitioners, after purchase, they continue to perform the 'Kattalai'
and the property never vested with the temple. Subsequently, the writ
petitioners deposited a lumpsum amount with the appellant herein for
performing the 'Kattalai' and based on that, a rythwari patta was also issued
to the petitioners, under Section 21 of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (30 of 1963). Still the patta stands in
the name of the petitioners and it was not cancelled.
4. Subsequently, the appellant temple filed an application, seeking
enhancement of the amount fixed in lieu of the 'Kattalai', and on the
application filed by the temple, the amount was enhanced by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, the writ petitioners have also deposited the amount.
Thereafter, the temple said to have filed a Suit in O.S.No.310 of 2008, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, to set aside the
sale deed made in favour of the writ petitioners. At the time of filing the
writ petition, the suit was pending. In the meantime, the writ petitioners
want to alienate the property and also executed the sale deed, in favour of
3rd parties and also submitted the same before the 6th respondent / Sub
Registrar, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document stating
that an objection has been raised by the temple and a civil suit also pending
between the parties, until the dispute resolved, the document cannot be
registered. Challenging that order, the writ petition has been filed.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties elaborately,
allowed the writ petition holding that the patta granted in favour of the
petitioners have not been cancelled and merely because a civil suit is
pending, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register the document. Now,
challenging the above said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
6. Mr.M.P.Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
fairly submitted that now the civil suit filed by the temple in O.S.No.310 of
2008, has been dismissed by the learned Principal District Munsif Judge,
Sankarankoil, and challenging the same, the temple have also filed an
Appeal before the Sub-Court, Sankarankoil with a delay and the appeal is
yet to be numbered, and the condone delay application is pending. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
further submitted that the property has been settled in favour of the temple
by the original owner, for performing the 'Kattalai' and an endowment
created in favour of the temple, the legal heirs of the original settlor cannot
alienate the property. Hence, the very alienation made in favour of the writ
petitioners is null and void. That apart, since the title dispute is pending
between the parties, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the temple
has raised objections and considering the objections, the Sub Registrar
refused to register the document and it is perfectly in order, but the learned
Judge, without considering the same, allowed the writ petition.
7. Mr.S.Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners / respondents would contend that after purchasing the property,
the petitioners made a lumpsum amount for performing the 'Kattalai' and it
was also accepted by the temple. Based on that, a rythwari patta was
granted in favour of the petitioners, under Act 30 of 1963, that patta sofar
not cancelled. That apart, the temple, after accepting the amount, not
being satisfied with the quantum, filed an application before the Revenue
Divisional Officer and on their application, the Revenue Divisional Officer
enhanced the amount and that was also deposited by the petitioners.
Hence, the interest of the temple to conduct the 'Kattalai' has been secured.
That apart, now the suit filed by the Temple was also dismissed pending the
writ appeal. In the above circumstances, the temple cannot raise any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
objections under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The learned Judge
has also considering the entire circumstances allowed the writ petition and
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. We have also heard Mr.Sureshkumar, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the official respondents.
9. The writ petitioners purchased the property in the year 1990
from the legal heirs of the original owner. Further, the temple also accepted
a lumpsum amount towards performing 'Kattalai' from the writ petitioners.
After accepting the amount, not being satisfied with the quantum filed an
application before the Revenue Divisional Officer and on their application,
the Revenue Divisional Officer enhanced the amount and that was also
deposited by the petitioners. Now, based on that, rythwari patta was also
granted in favour of the writ petitioners under Act 30 of 1963. So far, the
patta has not been cancelled by the competent authority. That apart, now it
is stated that the suit filed by the temple to set aside the sale made in
favour of the writ petitioners was also dismissed, and an appeal was filed by
the appellant against that judgment and decree. In those circumstances,
until the suit is decreed in favour of the petitioners, setting aside the sale
deed made in favour of the writ petitioners, the temple cannot claim any
right over the property and they cannot object the registration of any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
documents. The learned Single Judge, considering the entire materials
rightly allowed the writ petition and we find no infirmity in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is needless to state that any alienation made pending the
suit, it is governed by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. In the event
of temple succeeded in the appeal and get a decree in their favour, temple
interest will be protected under Section 52 of Transfer of Properties Act.
Considering the fact that an appeal is pending against the dismissal of the
suit filed by the appellant temple, appellate Court is directed to consider
the appeal on its own merits, without reference to any of the findings made
in the Writ Appeal and decide the issues independently,
11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(V.B.D, J.) (J.N.B, J.)
03.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / no
mpk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Karivalamvandanallur,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
J.NISHA BANU, J.
MPK
W.A.(MD)No.343 of 2013
03.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
