T.Balan vs Mohanakrishnan
2024 Latest Caselaw 8385 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8385 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 June, 2024

Madras High Court

T.Balan vs Mohanakrishnan on 4 June, 2024

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                             W.A.No.582 of 2021



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 04.06.2024

                                                   CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
                                                     AND
                              THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                               W.A.No.582 of 2021
                                                     and
                                              CMP.No.2457 of 2021

                  1. T.Balan
                  2. M.Kothandaraman
                                                                               ... Appellants
                                                      Vs.
                  1. Mohanakrishnan
                  2. The Executive Officer,
                     Sri Athithulyanatheeswarar Temple,
                     Arankandanallur, Tirukoilur Taluk,
                     Villupuram District.
                  3. The Deputy Commissioner,
                     HR & CE Department,
                     Trichy District.
                  4. The Regional Manager,
                     M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
                     Tondiarpet,
                     Chennai-600 081.
                                                                            ... Respondents
                  Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
                  aside the order dated 12.03.2020 passed in W.P.No.33522 of 2014.



                 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.A.No.582 of 2021



                                  For Appellants      : Mr.N.L.Rajah
                                                        Senior Counsel
                                                        for Mr.K.R.Arunsabari

                                  For Respondents : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
                                                    for Mrs.V.Srimathi for R1
                                                    Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
                                                    Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
                                                    for R2 & R3
                                                    No Appearance for R4
                                                       *****

                                                   JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted challenging the

order dated 12.03.2020 passed in WP.No.33522 of 2014. The respondents 4

and 5 in the writ proceedings are the appellants before us. The

entertainability of the writ petition has been primarily raised by the learned

Senior Counsel Mr.N.L.Rajah on behalf of the appellants on the ground that

the civil right of the writ petitioner/first respondent is the cause raised in the

writ petition and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the

writ petition for the purpose of considering the relief as sought for in the writ

petition by the first respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel would further contend that

with reference to the right of the first respondent to administer an endowment

constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act is subjudiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India. The suit was instituted and the plaintiff succeeded and the First

Appeal was partly allowed. SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India is pending and an interim order of status quo has been granted.

Pursuant to the interim order of status quo granted by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, the lease executed is acted upon and a retail petrol Bunk is in

operation. Originally, a lease deed dated 31.10.2011 was executed by the

first respondent-Mohanakrishnan in favour of Smt.Seethalakshmi.

Subsequent to the interim order of status quo granted by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India on 05.09.2014, the first respondent Mohanakrishnan executed

a lease deed in favour of BPCL on 15.06.2016 for a period of 29 years for a

monthly lease amount of Rs.5,000/-. The leased out land is admeasuring 30

cents and a valuable land. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.L.Rajah would

submit that the lease amount itself is not in commensuration with the market

rental value of the property and the lease deed was executed after grant of an

interim order of status quo by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. However, the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun

Natarajan would submit that as per the judgment and decree passed in

A.S.No.747 of 1998, the Executive Officer of the temple also must be jointly

managing the affairs of Kattalai property along with the first respondent.

4. However, the issues involved in the SLP need not be adjudicated in

the present writ proceedings.

5. We are inclined to consider the scope of the writ proceedings with

reference to the relief sought for. The first respondent filed a writ of

Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with the right of the

petitioner to lease out the property to Mrs.Seethalakshmi. He executed the

lease deed in favour of Smt.Seethalakshmi on 31.10.2011 and after the

interim order of status quo by the Apex Court, the first respondent further

executed a lease deed in favour of BPCL on 15.06.2016. Lease right with

reference to the temple property need not be adjudicated in the present writ

proceedings. Admittedly, the subject property is an endowment constituted

and falling under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Charitable Endowments Act. Section 34 of the Act deals with alienation of

immovable Trust property and reads as under:-

“34. Alienation of immovable trust property.—(1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by 1[the Commissioner] as being necessary or beneficial to the institution :

Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly consider by 1[the Commissioner] :”

6. It is mandatory to secure permission from the competent authority

under the Act to lease the temple property endowed. More so, any lease of

property for a term exceeding 5 years, permission is to be obtained from the

Commissioner of HR and CE. Such permission is to be granted by the

Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. The learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Special Government Pleader would contend that no such permission was

granted. However, the relief as such sought for in the writ proceedings to

forebear the respondents from interfering the rights of the petitioner to lease

out the property, cannot be considered by the Writ Court nor such writ

petitions are entertainable. Such rights are to be established through civil

proceedings, which has already been instituted and subjudiced before the