Madras High Court
Arulmigu Sri Ranganathaswamy ... vs Chelladurai ...1St on 12 October, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
Arulmigu Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple,
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
Srirangam, Trichy. ... Appellant/ 3rd party
/Vs./
1.Chelladurai ...1stRespondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Sub Registrar,
Illuppur, Illuppur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
3.Sri Ramanuja Koodam,
Rep. by its Trustee viz.G.Krishnamoorthy,
Naidu Street, Illuppur,
Illuppur Post,
Pudukkottai District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner (HR &CE),
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board Officer,
Near Municipality,
Pudukottai. ... Respondents 2-4 / Respondents 1-3
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
PRAYER: Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying
this Court, to set aside the order dated 06.02.2017 made in WP(MD)No.
6355 of 2014 on the file of this Court and allow this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel (For R1)
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (For R3)
Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader (For R2 & R4)
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(MD)No.6355 of 2014, dated
06.02.2017.
2. The first respondent / writ petitioner filed the writ petition
challenging the communication, dated 13.05.2013 issued by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
respondent herein and for a consequential direction to register and release
the sale deed that was pending on the file of the second respondent as
pending Document No.7/2010.
3. The appellant was not a party in the writ petition. However, writ
petition was contested by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department and hence, the learned Single Judge of this Court, based on the
pleadings, decided two issues, which are extracted hereunder:
“(a) Whether the H.R and C.E., Department is having
control over the second respondent private trust?
(b) If the H.R. and C.E., Department is having control
over the second respondent private trust, wherein Section
22(A) of the Tamil Nadu Registration (Amendment Act) as
amended by Act No.2 of 2009 by the Tamil Nadu
Government, has any application to the present facts and
circumstances of the case?”
4. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, a finding was given to the
effect that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department does
not have any right over the subject property and hence, there is no
requirement to get a No Objection Certificate from the Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
5. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, it was more consequent
by virtue of the finding given to the first issue and hence, it was held that
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, will not apply to the facts of the
present case.
6. The appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court, after getting the leave of this Court, mainly on the
ground that there is a specific endowment made by the third respondent
herein, in favour of the appellant Temple and hence, there is no question of
alienation of the property without getting the sanction of the Commissioner.
It was further contended that the third respondent herein is a religious
Institution under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department. That apart, the appellant also alleged fraud
against the writ petitioner on the ground that the order was obtained behind
the back of the appellant.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and
the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
9. The writ petitioner filed an earlier writ petition in WP(MD)No.
9997 of 2010 questioning the information that was received under the Right
to Information Act, 2005, through Letter dated 20.07.2010. In this writ
petition, the appellant had also impleaded themselves as the fourth
respondent. This Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, through an
order dated 04.10.2012. Subsequently, the second respondent herein,
through communication dated 13.05.2013 refused to register the sale deed
that was presented by the writ petitioner. While challenging the said
communication and seeking for consequential direction, the appellant was
not made as a party in the writ petition. The Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department alone was impleaded as a party in the
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
10. The Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and
has taken almost a similar stand, as is taken by the appellant. This was
considered by the learned Single Judge and a finding was rendered to the
effect that the property does not come within the control of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, since the Trust itself has
not been brought under the control / administration of the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment Department.
11. It is brought to our notice that the second and fourth respondents
in this Writ Appeal, filed WA(MD)No.372 of 2017 challenging the order
passed by the learned Single Judge and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed
through an order dated 27.04.2017 in the following manner:
“....
2.This appeal is directed against the order in W.P.
(MD).No.6355 of 2014, dated 06.02.2017. The said writ
petition was filed by the first respondent to quash the order
passed by the first appellant to register and release the sale
deed dated 14.06.2010. By allowing the writ petition, the
Writ Court set aside the order passed by the first appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
and directed to register and release the document, if there is
no legal impediment. Accordingly, though the appeal was
preferred by the appellants, the document was registered as
No.201 of 2017 dated 08.03.2017 and the same has been
released. Therefore, nothing survives to adjudicate in this
writ appeal, except to observe that mere registration and
release the document will not take away the rights of the
respondent temple or the HR&CE Department, which they
can independently adjudicate before the appropriate forum
and it is always open to them to approach the Civil Court for
necessary relief to that effect.
.....”
12. It is also brought to our notice that the sale deed that was
presented by the petitioner has subsequently been registered by the second
respondent herein and the document has also been released.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged this Court
to interpret the terms of the will dated 13.10.1951 and to render a finding on
the nature of the dedication that was made in favour of the appellant temple.
Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant wants this
Court to set aside the registration made in favour of the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Trust,
namely, the third respondent herein, submitted that the issue as to whether
the property was absolutely dedicated to the appellant temple cannot be
contested in a writ petition, since it requires appreciation of evidence. The
learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench, while dismissing
the earlier writ appeal filed by the Department has already given liberty to
the affected parties to agitate before the appropriate forum and hence, the
appellant, if they have any grievance on the Trust dealing with the property,
can only approach the appropriate forum and establish their right or move
the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959, for initiating action in accordance with law.
15. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent /
writ petitioner submitted that nothing survives in the present Writ appeal,
since the sale deed has already been registered and the document has been
released and registered documents cannot be set aside by this Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction and appropriate course of action for the
appellant is only to approach the civil forum and establish their right over
the subject property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
16. In the considered view of this Court, it will not be appropriate to
undertake the exercise of interpreting the will dated 13.10.1951 and render a
finding with respect to the nature of the property and to whom it absolutely
belongs. This is an issue, which can only be contested by a competent Civil
Court. This is the reason why the earlier writ appeal that was filed by the
Department was dismissed by this Court and liberty was given to the parties
to knock the doors of the appropriate forum.
17. The sale deed has already been registered in favour of the writ
petitioner and the document has been released. According to the appellant,
the order was obtained by the writ petitioner behind the back of the
appellant and by misleading this Court. Whatever ground was raised by the
appellant, was also raised by the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department and only on considering the same, the parties were
directed to approach the civil forum. In view of the same, the document that
has already been registered and released in favour of the writ petitioner,
cannot be cancelled by this Court and we are not inclined to exercise such
an extraordinary jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
18. Considering the serious claim made by the appellant insofar as the
subject property is concerned, we can only make it clear that the
observations made by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ
petition on the merits of the claim, will not bind the appellant. That apart,
the document that was registered and released to the writ petitioner will also
not bind the appellant. If this clarity is given, it will be open to the
appellant to question the sale deed and establish their right over the subject
property in the manner known to law. Either the appellant has to initiate
proceedings before the competent civil Court or if they are under the control
of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, they can
always make an application before the Department and proceed further in
the manner known to law as provided under the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Except giving this liberty,
no further orders can be passed in this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
19. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
No costs.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
12.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
To:
1.The Sub Registrar,
Illuppur, Illuppur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (HR &CE),
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board Officer,
Near Municipality,
Pudukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
sm
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)No.549 of 2017
Dated
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
