Madras High Court
G.Subramaniya Pillai (Died) vs The Commissioner on 4 July, 2023
WA No.2064 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.2064 of 2021
and CMP No.13068 of 2021
1. G.Subramaniya Pillai (Died)
2. S.Thulasi Bai
3. S.Vijaya Kumar
4. T.Sumathi
5. S.Suresh Kumar
6. J.Subashini
(Appellants 2 to 6 substituted as
Legal Representatives of the
deceased Sole Appellant vide
order of Court dated 12.06.2023
made in CMP.No.12073/2023) ... Appellants
-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.
2. The Executive Officer,
Dharmaraja Vembuliamman Devasthanam,
Vijaya Vigneswarar Koil Street,
Choolai, Chennai 600 112. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2064 of 2021
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.2487 of 2012 on
the file of this Court.
For the Appellants :: Mr.V.Raghupathi
For the Respondents :: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Govt. Pleader for R-1
:: Mr.R.Mahalingam for R-2
*****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The sole appellant, who since died pending the writ appeal,
assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by him seeking directions
against the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in his
favour in respect of the property bearing House and Ground Old Door
No.93, subsequent Door No.93/2, present Door no.102, Vijaya
Vigneswarar Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai. The appeal is prosecuted
further by his legal heirs.
2. The learned counsel for the present appellants, who are the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2064 of 2021
legal representatives of the deceased appellant, submits that the
deceased appellant had filed an application bearing M.P.No.505 of
1981 in the Ejectment Suit No.30 of 1981 under Section 9 of the
Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (in short 'the Act of 1921')
seeking for a direction to the Temple to sell the land for a price fixed
through a Commissioner appointed by the Court. In the said
application, the Court passed the order fixing the price at Rs.11,740/-
and asking the deceased appellant to deposit the amount in 34
monthly instalments of Rs.345/- per month commencing from
15.09.1982. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
entire amount of instalments has been deposited by the deceased
appellant. The sale deed was not executed by the respondents. The
learned counsel relies upon the proviso to Section 3 of the Madras City
Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of
1996) (in short 'the Amendment Act') to submit that nothing contained
in this Section shall be deemed to invalidate any Suit or proceeding in
which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full
before the said date. The fact that the entire amount has been
deposited by the deceased appellant is a matter of record and is not
disputed, inter alia, the decree or order of the Court is satisfied in full.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2064 of 2021
The said aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the respondents also.
4. It is a fact that the deceased appellant had deposited the 34
instalments as directed by the Small Causes Court, Chennai. However,
the learned Judge did not record his satisfaction in full nor the sale
deed was executed nor the deceased appellant filed an application for
execution of the order/decree.
5. The obligation of the deceased appellant does not rest after
depositing the instalments. As per Section 9(3)(a) of the Act of 1921,
on payment of the price fixed under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the
Court has to pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to
the tenant of the extent of the land for which the said price was fixed.
The Court shall, by the same order, direct the landlord to put the
tenant into possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any, and
the stamp duty and registration fee in respect of such conveyance shall
be borne by the tenant. Admittedly, there is no order of the Court
after the payment has been made by the deceased appellant directing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2064 of 2021
conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the property in question.
Further, the stamp duty and registration fees were also not borne by
the tenant for any such conveyance. The Apex Court in a case of
Bagirathi Ammal, S. vs. V.Palani Roman Catholic Mission
reported in (2007) 5 CTC 881, observed as under:
"It is clear that if the tenant complies with the order passed under
Section 9(1)(b) and deposits the amount within the time as fixed, the Court
has to pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the
tenant. It is true that as per Section 9(3)(b) on passing an order under
Clause (a) the Suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed. In the light of the
language used in Clause (a) i.e. "Conveyance" to be made by the landlord
to the tenant, till the proper document conveying title to the tenant it is
presumed that the proceeding is kept pending. To put it clear that unless
the sale deed is executed by the landlord in favour of the tenant or in the
alternative by the Court on behalf of the landlord the fruits of the decree
cannot be realized. The Suit or proceeding will come to an end
immediately on execution of sale deed either by the landlord or by the
Court on behalf of the landlord. In our case, as said earlier, the sale deed
was executed only on 28.10.1996, however the amended Act 2/96 came
into force on 11.1.1996 much earlier to the execution of sale deed. The
view expressed in the Full Bench decision runs counter to the language
used in the statute and we are unable to accept the same."
6. As admittedly in this case no further order is passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2064 of 2021
Court directing execution of conveyance by the landlord and that no
conveyance has been executed and further, the stamp duty and
registration charges were also not borne by the tenant, we find that
the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in passing the
impugned order.
The writ appeal as such is dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
04.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.
2. The Executive Officer,
Dharmaraja Vembuliamman Devasthanam,
Vijaya Vigneswarar Koil Street,
Choolai, Chennai 600 112.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2064 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(sra)
WA No.2064 of 2021
04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
