Madras High Court
R.Govindarajan vs The Official Trustee Of Tamil Nadu on 9 September, 2022
OSA.Nos.242 & 243/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
OSA.Nos.242 and 243/2022
R.Govindarajan ... Appellant in OSA.No.242/2022
1. J.Thangamma
2. Biju Lukose
3. Binu Alex
4. Brinson Lukose ... Appellants in OSA.No.243/2022
-vs-
The Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
O/o.Administrator General and Official Trustee,
High Court Campus,
Chennai-600 104. ... Respondent in both OSAs.
Original Side Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Common
Order dated 18.02.2022 passed in A.No.2375/2020 in
C.S.No.274/1899 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
In both Appeals :
For Appellants : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi
For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA.Nos.242 & 243/2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
Both these Original Side Appeals have been preferred against the
Common Order dated 18.02.2022 passed in A.No.2375/2020 in
C.S.No.274/1899 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Counsel for the appellants in
both these Appeals submitted that the land-in-question measuring to
an extent of 1710 sq.ft. was originally leased out to one
Mr.P.V.Karuppan by the Official Trustee and he has put up building to
an extent of 3988 sq.ft. in that land. Thereafter, he sold the
superstructure with leasehold rights in favour of ibe Maragathammal
by way of Deed of Sale dated 05.07.1933 on the file of the Sub-
Registrar Office, Triplicane. After the death of the said
Maragathammal, her legal heirs sold the superstructure along with
leasehold rights in favour of the appellants' father S.Ramasami by a
Deed of Sale dated 02.07.1979 registered as Document No.557/1979
on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Triplicane. From the date of
purchase, the appellants' father was in possession of the entire
property till his death and after his death, the appellants as legal heirs
of the deceased Ramasami are continued to be in possession of the
same and they are paying the rents to the Official Trustee. As such,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA.Nos.242 & 243/2022
the appellants are the lessees and they have been in possession of the
properties-in-question for several years and they are willing to
purchase the same for reasonable rate. Further, the rent has been
gradually enhanced and the present rent is Rs.4,500/- p.m.
3.Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that on
an earlier occasion, the Official Trustee filed an Application in
A.No.135/1983 in C.S.No.274/1899 seeking permission to sell various
properties to nearly 42 lessees similarly placed like that of the
appellants herein and this Court also by an order dated 08.04.1983
permitted the respondent to sell the various sites to respective lessees
and accordingly, the respondent executed Sale Deeds in favour of
nearly 40 lessees on the rate fixed by this Court. Since the appellants
herein have also expressed their willingness to purchase the
properties-in-question, on an earlier occasion, this Court directed the
Official Trustee to sell the properties taking into account the tax
liability that may burden the estate that it would be convenient for the
estate to sell the land on the premise that the sale proceeds can be
released and the same can be made use for better investment for the
benefit of the estate. In the meanwhile, the respondent has issued a
notice on 02.11.2019 for revision of monthly rent for land and building
with a direction to pay Rs.63,000/- as monthly rent from 01.11.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA.Nos.242 & 243/2022
Disagreeing with the said sum, the appellants approached this Court
with an application in A.No.2379/2029 and also for a direction to the
Official Trustee to sell the property to the appellants at the rate to be
fixed by this Court. By a Common Order dated 18.02.2022, this Court
dismissed the prayer made by the appellants on the sole ground that
the respondent cannot be compelled to sell the properties-in-question
to the appellants-lessees and the learned Single Judge has also held
that when there is no specific agreement between the AG&OT and the
appellants-tenants for selling the properties, the relief sought for by
the applicants/appellants herein are liable to be rejected and
accordingly dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by the same,
the both these Appeals have been filed.
4.At the outset, it is seen that the superstructure along with
leasehold rights in respect of the properties-in-question were sold out
in favour of the appellants' father by the legal heirs of his vendor,
namely, S.Ramasami and after the death of the appellants' father, the
appellants have been in possession of the properties-in-question for
quite a long time. While so, when the respondent has issued a notice
on 02.11.2019 for revision of monthly rent for the land and building
and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.63,000/- as a
monthly rent from 01.11.2019, learned Counsel for the respondent
submitted that till date, the appellants have been paying only the old
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA.Nos.242 & 243/2022
rate of rent at Rs.4500/- p.m. Secondly, the AG&OT being a guardian
of the property and not being the owner, the learned Single Judge has
rightly reached the conclusion that the Administrator General and
Official Trustee cannot be compelled to sell away the properties to the
appellants-tenants and there is no specific agreement between the
landlord AG&OT and tenants-lessees for selling away the properties.
In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in Committee of Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust vs.
Official Trustee of Madras and another reported in (1994) 1
Supreme Court Cases 475 in which it has been held that High Court
cannot determine whether the terms were just and reasonable and
cannot on that basis direct the Official Trustee to grant lease in favour
of the applicant and the proper course for the court would be to order
public auction and the Courts' order should be such that the trust may
get maximum benefit. In view of the above, as rightly held by the
learned Single Judge, when the AG&OT cannot be compelled to sell the
property to the tenants and there is no specific agreement between
the landlord AG&OT and tenant for selling away the properties-in-
question, we do not find any merits in both these Original Side Appeals.
T.RAJA,J.
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
tsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA.Nos.242 & 243/2022
5. In the result, both these appeals fail and the same are
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(T.R.J.,) (P.D.A.J.,)
09.09.2022
tsi
To
Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
O/o.Administrator General and Official Trustee,
High Court Campus,
Chennai-600 104.
OSA.Nos.242 and 243/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
