Madras High Court
S.Swaminathan vs The Commissioner on 26 June, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.5598 of 2018
and
S.A.(MD) Nos.602 to 604 of 2006
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.5500 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.1632 of 2023
W.P.(MD) No.5598 of 2018:-
S.Swaminathan ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
2.The Assistant Commissioner cum
Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Jambukeswarar
Ahilandeswari Thirukovil,
Thiruvanaikovil,
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings
of the 2nd respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.266/1427/A7 dated 28/02/2018 in
respect of property situate at No.80, 81, South Car Street, Thiruvanaikaval,
Tiruchirappalli and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sricharan Rangaraja Senior Counsel for
Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : M/s.N.Krishnaveni Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Thiagarajan
S.A.(MD) No.602 of 2006:-
1.M.Singaram Chettiar (died)
2.S.Swaminathan
(A2 has been impleaded vide
order dated 03.02.2023)
...Appellant
-vs-
1.The Settlement Officer,
Thanjavur, having office at
Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Thanjavur, having office at
Thanjavur.
3.The Director Surveys and Settlement
Madras -5, having office at
Madras -5.
4.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration, Madras -5,
having office at Madras -5.
5.The Idol of Arulmighu Jambukeswarar
Ahilandeswari Devasthanam
Thiruvanaikovil rep by its
Executive Officer. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the
judgement and decree dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.289 of 2004 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.08.2003 in O.S.No.263 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant : Mr.Sricharan Rangaraja Senior Counsel for
Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R5 : M/s.N.Krishnaveni Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Thiagarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.603 of 2006:-
1.M.Singaram Chettiar (died)
2.S.Swaminathan
(A2 has been impleaded vide
order dated 03.02.2023) ...Appellant
-vs-
The Idol of Arulmighu Jambukeswarar
Ahilandeswari Devasthanam
Thiruvanaikovil rep by its
Executive Officer. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the
judgement and decree dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.298 of 2004 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.08.2003 in O.S.No.106 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant : Mr.Sricharan Rangaraja Senior Counsel for
Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondent : M/s.N.Krishnaveni Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Thiagarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.604 of 2006:-
1.M.Singaram Chettiar (died)
2.S.Swaminathan
(A2 has been impleaded vide
order dated 03.02.2023) ...Appellant
-vs-
The Idol of Arulmighu Jambukeswarar
Ahilandeswari Devasthanam
Thiruvanaikovil rep by its
Executive Officer. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the
judgement and decree dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.10 of 2004 and cross objection
on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli reversing the judgment
and decree dated 27.08.2003 in O.S.No.19 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant : Mr.Sricharan Rangaraja Senior Counsel for
Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondent : M/s.N.Krishnaveni Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Thiagarajan
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD) No.5598 of 2018 is filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Na.Ka.No.266/1427/A7 dated 28/02/2018 in respect of the property situate at No.
80, 81, South Car Street, Thiruvanaikaval, Tiruchirappalli and quashing the same.
2.S.A.(MD) No.602 of 2006 has been filed challenging the judgement and
decree dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.289 of 2004 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.08.2003 in O.S.No.263 of 1998 on the file of the learned I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
3.S.A.(MD) No.603 of 2006 has been filed challenging the judgement and
decree dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.298 of 2004 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.08.2003 in O.S.No.106 of 1990 on the file of the learned I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
4.S.A.(MD) No.604 of 2006 has been filed challenging the judgement and
decree dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.10 of 2004 and cross objection on the file of
the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli reversing the judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decree dated 27.08.2003 in O.S.No.19 of 1987 on the file of the learned I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
5.The subject matter of all these petitions revolves around the possession
and occupation of the property bearing D.Nos.80 and 80/1 in T.S.No.1401/4 at
South Car Street, Thiruvanaikaval by the original plaintiff, Singaram Chettiar
from the year 1957 onwards. The writ petition has been filed by Singaram
Chettiar's son and in the second appeals, he has been impleaded as a party after
the death of his father.
6.The case of Singaram Chettiar was that the constructions in the property
had been put up by him. The construction includes residential house and an oil
mill. The land belonged to the respondent temple. In the year 1972, the
respondent temple had threatened to evict Singaram Chettiar from the property if
he did not agree to pay the rents to the temple and demanded that Singaram
Chettiar should recognize the temple as the owner of the building. Under the
threat of eviction, the said Singaram Chettiar had agreed to pay the rent at Rs.30/-
per month which was increased to Rs.50/- per month in 1985 and on 01.06.1986,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the rent was sought to be increased to Rs.250/- per month. Since the patta was
wrongly granted in favour of the temple, Singaram Chettiar had approached the
Settlement Tahsildar, Thanjavur challenging the grant of patta in favour of the
temple. His representation was dismissed and further representations before the
Director of Settlement and the Commissioner (Land Administration) were also
dismissed.
7.Meanwhile, the respondent temple insisted on the payment of arrears of
rent and had instituted the suits for recovery of possession against Singaram
Chettiar in O.S.No.19 of 1987 and for recovery of arrears of rent in O.S.No.106
of 1990 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. Singaram
Chettiar in turn had filed a suit O.S.No.263 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court,
Tiruchirappalli for declaration that the patta in respect of the property which was
granted in favour of the temple was null and void, for declaring him as the owner
of the suit property and for permanent injunction. All the three suits were taken up
for joint trial and by a common judgment and decree dated 27.08.2003, O.S.No.
19 of 1987 filed for recovery of possession was dismissed on the ground that
proper notice under the Transfer of Property Act had not been issued, though title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was found in favour of the temple. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent was
decreed and the suit filed by Singaram Chettiar for declaration and injunction was
dismissed.
8.Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit for recovery of possession, the
temple had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2004 and against the other two
judgments, Singaram Chettiar had filed A.S.No.298 of 2004 (O.S.No.106 of
1990) and A.S.No.289 of 2004 (O.S.No.263 of 1998). Cross objections were also
filed by Singaram Chettiar in A.S.No.10 of 2004. The appeals were taken up for
hearing together and the appeal filed by the temple was allowed and the appeals
and cross-objections filed by Singaram Chettiar were dismissed. It is these orders
that are the subject matter of challenge in the above second appeals.
9.While so, when all these proceedings were pending, the second
respondent had issued the impugned notice dated 28.02.2018 in terms of W.P.
(MD) Nos.14428 and 16833 of 2017 dated 12.02.2018 stating that in order to
occupy the temple property, the arrears of rent payable up to 28.02.2018 had to be
paid within a period of four weeks, failing which steps will be taken to evict the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act.
Challenging this notice, W.P.(MD) No.5598 of 2018 has been filed.
10.When the matter had come up on 21.06.2023, a proposal for settlement
was put forward and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent temple had sought time to revert. Ultimately, the petitioner/appellant
has filed an affidavit signed today, wherein in paragraph No.6, the following
undertaking has been given.
“6.I further submit that the above said second appeals and writ
petitions came up for final hearing on 1.06.2023 and to fin amicable
solutions to the protracted litigation without prejudice to my rights
and contentions. I hereby undertake that I am willing to vacate the
premises within a period of 10 months and I am ready to pay the
entire arrears of rent as full and final settlement of Rs.31,72,880/-
within a period of 30 months in 30 equal installments.”
11.The litigation has been festering since the year 1986 and nearly 26 years
have gone in litigation. By this undertaking, the parties are bringing to an end
over a three-decade saga of litigation. Therefore, the above writ petition as well as
the second appeals are disposed of with the following directions:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a) The petitioner/appellant shall vacate the premises on or before
01.05.2024 and shall not stay a day beyond the said date.
b) The arrears of rent of a sum of Rs.31,72,880/- will be paid in 30 equated
monthly installments of Rs.1,05,763/-on or before the 10th of every English
Calendar month.
c) The first installment shall be paid on or before 10.07.2023.
It is made clear that if there is a default of even a month installment, then
the respondent temple is entitled to execute the decree without request to this
Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 26.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mm
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
2.The Settlement Officer,
Thanjavur, having office at
Thanjavur.
3.The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Thanjavur, having office at
Thanjavur.
4.The Director Surveys and Settlement
Madras -5, having office at
Madras -5.
5.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration, Madras -5,
having office at Madras -5.
6.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.5598 of 2018
and
S.A.(MD) Nos.602 to 604 of 2006
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
