Madras High Court
Suma vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 January, 2025
2025:MHC:223
S.A.No.365 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 22 / 10 / 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 23 / 01 / 2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
S.A.NO.365 OF 2021
1.Suma
2.V.Arunkumar ... Appellants / Respondents /
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the District Collector,
Namakkal.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Namakkal.
4.The Tahsildar,
Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal.
5.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Chennai – 600 034.
6.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 27
S.A.No.365 of 2021
7.The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 600 028.
8.The Sub Registrar,
Sendamangalam,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents / Appellants /
Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
September 6, 2019 made in A.S.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Namakkal, reversing the Judgment and Decree
dated September 2, 2016 made in O.S.No.211 of 2009 on the file of the
Sub Court, Namakkal.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Siddharth
1 to 4, 7 & 8 Government Advocate
For Respondents
5 and 6 : Mr.S.Ravichandran
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed at the instance of the
plaintiffs in the Original Suit. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree
dated September 6, 2019 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2018 by the 'Principal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 27
District Court, Namakkal' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], wherein
and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated September 2, 2016 passed in
O.S.No.211 of 2009 by the 'Subordinate Court, Namakkal' [henceforth
'Trial Court'] was reversed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
3. The Suit Properties, measuring an extent of 8.24 Acres
located in Thirumalaigiri Village, belong to the plaintiffs. Originally, a
portion thereof, measuring an extent of 1.90 Acres, referred to by the
locals as 'Naikkan Kulathulvai Puravai Nanjai', [ehaf;fd;
Fsj;Js;tha; g[utha; eO;ir] was purchased by one Nanjundaiyyar,
son of Ramayyar on November 21, 1895, under a registered Sale Deed,
for the purpose of conducting poojas regularly to Idol of Lord Vinayaga
installed by him in the Easwaran Temple in Samayasangili Village,
Tiruchengode Taluk. Nanjundaiyyar later executed a registered Will dated
April 2, 1905 and bequeathed the said 1.90 Acres to his adopted son -
Sankararamaiyar on a specific condition that the income derived
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 27
therefrom shall be utilized for conducting poojas to Idol Vinayaga
consecrated in the aforesaid Temple. Upon Nanjundaiyyar’s death,
Sankararamaiyar managed the said 1.90 Acres and carried out the
obligations out of the income therefrom. Subsequently, vide Trust Deed
dated March 25, 1960, Sankararamaiyar dedicated the remaining portion
of the Suit Properties, in addition to the said extent of 1.90 Acre, to Idol
Vinayaga, and appointed his three sons as Trustees to manage and
maintain the Suit Properties as well as to carry out poojas to Idol
Vinayaga. Due to insufficient income from the Suit Properties, the
plaintiffs requested the ‘Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department’ ['HR & CE Department' for short] to take over the
management of the Suit Properties, however, no response was received.
After the demise of Sankararamaiyar, his grandchildren formed a new
Trust on July 9, 1998 and appointed an agent to sell the Suit Properties.
Despite obtaining permission of Court to sell the Suit Properties in Trust
O.P.No.46 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal, the
Sub-Registrar refused registration of the Sale Deed, claiming that the Suit
Properties belonged to the Temple. Actually, the Suit Properties are not
Temple Lands but they were purchased by Nanjundaiyyar in his name.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 27
The defendants 5 and 6 have no right in the Suit Properties. Hence, the
Suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction directing the Defendant
Nos.1 to 4 to rectify the Patta relating to the Suit Properties by deleting
the Idol’s name and to register the Sale Deed presented by the plaintiffs
on November 20, 2007 in respect of the Suit Properties and other reliefs.
DEFENDANTS' CASE
4. The sixth defendant filed written statement and the same
was adopted by other defendants. It is averred in the written statement
that Suit Temple is a non-listed Temple under the control of the Arulmigu
Samba Parameshwara Swamy Thirukoil’s Assistant Commissioner. The
Suit Properties were dedicated to the Idol – Raja Ganapathy [Lord
Vinayagar] located in front of the aforesaid Temple as a religious
endowment; it belongs to the Idol. Mere kist receipts will not confer any
title or right to the plaintiffs. The mutation in the revenue records,
effected without notice to the HR & CE Department, is void and would
not bind the Idol. The Suit Properties cannot be sold or transferred
without prior permission from the HR & CE Department. The plaintiffs
failed to establish their ownership or rights over the Suit Properties. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 27
Trust Deed executed by Sankararamaiyar’s grandsons does not confer any
authority to sell Temple Lands. Without getting prior permission from the
HR & CE Department, the Suit Properties were intended for sale, which is
not valid. The Order in said Trust O.P.No.46 of 2004 has been passed in
the year 2005, whereas the alleged amount said to be the sale price was
received in the year 2003 itself. The moment the Suit Properties were
dedicated and handed over in favour of Lord Vinayaga, from then on, they
would be governed by Section 34 of the 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959' ['HR & CE Act' for brevity]. The
sellers of the Suit Properties viz., the grandsons of Sankararamaiyar have
to be impleaded as necessary parties to the Suit. Further, in the Gift
Settlement Deed, the grandsons of Sankararamaiyar were only shown as
'Dharmakarthas', who have no right to sell or alienate the Suit Properties;
they are only the managers. Accordingly, the defendants sought for
dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit.
TRIAL COURT:
5. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, second plaintiff
was examined as P.W.1, one Venkateswaran was examined as P.W.2, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 27
Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.40 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one
Devarajan was examined as D.W.1, one Parasuraman was examined as
D.W.2, one Krishnaraj was examined as D.W.3, and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.4
were marked.
6. After completion of trial and hearing both sides, the Trial
Court concluded that, at the material point of time, the Suit Idol and its
Temple were not under the purview of HR & CE Department and the Suit
Temple was also not listed under the list of temples under the control of
HR & CE Department. Primarily based on this finding, the Trial Court
decreed the Suit as prayed for.
FIRST APPELLATE COURT:
7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal in
A.S.No.24 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court, which after hearing
both sides and perusing the records, concluded that the Suit Properties are
public trust properties and hence, the Indian Trust Act, 1882 would not
apply. The HR & CE Department was not added as a party in the said
Trust Original Petition and hence, the Order passed therein granting
permission to sell the Suit Properties is void. The Suit is barred by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 27
limitation under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908. The grandsons
of Sankararamaiyar, who are mere Trustees, do not have any right to
execute Sale Deed in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ predecessor in
title ought to have filed a Suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court erroneously marked the unregistered
Sale Deed as Ex-A.16 and the same shall be eschewed. Upon these
findings, First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal Suit by setting aside
the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court.
SECOND APPEAL
8. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred
this Second Appeal, which was admitted on August 16, 2021 on the
following substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in
dismissing the Suit when the Defendants failed to discharge
their onus that the properties vest in a public trust when
evidently there is no dedication of the Suit property in favour
of the temple or deity and the First Appellate Court
erroneously concluded that the property is dedicated by way
of public trust without any specific deed to that effect by
misconstruing and misinterpreting the Private Trust as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 27
Public Trust in the absence of actual and specific divestment
of the property?
2.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in allowing the
appeal when especially under the Trust Deed did not create
any specific endowment and dedication of the suit property to
the temple and the family members retain title and control
over the suit property and whether it is right on the part of
the Lower Appellate Court to construe erroneously that this
is a public trust contrary 1/4 (Sic. one for) to the intention of
the creator of the Trust?
3.In the absence of divestment of title in favour of the deity
and when there is no evidence to establish that the HR&CE
has taken over the property, whether the trust could be
construed as a public trust when especially the Appellant has
proved beyond doubt that there is no religious charity within
the meaning of Section 6 (16), Section 6 (17) of Tamil Nadu
HR & CE Act, 1969?
4.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that
the Plaintiff's predecessor in title ought to have filed the
Petition under Section 92 of CPC when especially the order
made in Trust OP No.46/2004 was never impeached for any
reason and erroneously declaring the Exhibit A-14 is void
when there exists no public trust in the eye of law?
5.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in holding
that the Suit is barred by limitation in view of Section 77 of
the Registration Act, 1908, having failed to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 27
Registrar had never refused to register the documents and
only sought for a No Objection from HR & CE Department
and failed to consider the correspondence and deliberations
between HR & CE and the Plaintiff till 08.10.2009 and when
especially no orders were passed under Section 72 or Section
76 of the Registration Act, holding the suit is barred by time
contrary to evidences available on record?
6.When the predecessor in title of the Appellants have
discharged their burden that selling of the property has
arisen in order to carry out the obligation of conducting
pooja for the Vinayakar idol which has been approved by the
competent Court in Trust transfer OP No.46 of 2004, and if
so, whether the Appellate Court is holding that the
Appellant's predecessor in title ought to have involved
Section 92 of CPC? ”
ARGUMENTS:
9. Mr.M.Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants /
plaintiffs would argue that the Suit Temple does not come under the
control of HR & CE Department. A portion of Suit Properties was
purchased by Nanjundaiyar vide Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed and thereafter, he
executed Ex-A.2 – Will whereby he dedicated the said portion in favour
of the Suit Idol which was consecrated by him in Eashwaran Temple at
Samaysangali Village. After the demise of Nanjundaiyar, his adopted son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 27
– Sankararamaiyar formed a Trust vide Ex-A.4 – Trust Deed and
dedicated the remaining portion of Suit Properties for the purpose of
conducting poojas, charity and ceremonies to the Suit Idol and appointed
his three sons as the Trustees. Since the income from the Suit Properties
were insufficient to perform poojas, charity and ceremonies, the three
sons addressed Ex-A.5 - Letter to the HR & CE Department requesting
them to take over the Suit Properties, and perform poojas and charities as
per the wish of Nanjundaiyyar. Subsequently, since the HR & CE
Department did not respond, the grandsons formed a new Trust under Ex-
A.7 - Trust Deed and decided to sell the Suit Properties and use the sale
consideration to perform poojas etc. as per the wish of Nanjundaiyyar.
Hence, they filed said Trust O.P.No.46 of 2004 and deposited the sale
consideration on October 8, 2003. Upon obtaining permission from Court
vide Ex-A.14 – Order to sell the Suit Properties, Ex-A.16 (eschewed) -
Sale Deed, the Sale Deed in question, was executed in favour of plaintiffs
on November 20, 2007 and presented for registration. The Sub-Registrar
refused to register citing that the Suit Properties are Temple Lands and
hence the Suit. It has to be noted that Ex-A.21 - Government Order
prohibiting registration of Temple Lands have been revoked vide Ex-A.22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 27
- Government Order. Request for No Objection Certificate for sale of Suit
Properties by the grandsons of Sankararamaiyar was refused by HR & CE
Department. The Suit Properties are Private Trust Properties and the HR
& CE Department has no authority or control over the same. The purpose
of the sale was to perform poojas and Kaingariyiam as per the wish of
Nanjundaiyyar out of the sale proceeds. The refusal of the Sub-Registrar
to register Ex-A.16 (eschewed) - Sale Deed executed in pursuance of the
Order passed by the competent Court is not lawful. The First Appellate
Court’s finding that the Suit Properties belong to a public trust is
erroneous. The Trial Court rightly decreed the Suit. The First Appellate
Court erroneously allowed the appeal setting aside the Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Second
Appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court, and
restore the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He would rely on the
Judgment of this Court in Chelladurai -vs- Sub-Registrar, Illupur,
reported in (2017) 3 MLJ 832 in support of his contentions.
10. Opposing these submissions, Mr.S.Ravichandran,
Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 27
Defendant Nos.5 & 6, and Mr.R.Siddharth, Government Advocate
appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 8 / Defendant Nos.1 to 4, 7
& 8 would argue that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the
Suit based on Ex-A.16 (eschewed) - unregistered Sale Deed. While the
Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed in the year 2007, the Suit
was filed on December 7, 2009 which is beyond the stipulated time of 30
days under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, barred
by limitation. The Suit Properties were dedicated to Suit Idol Vinayaga
and hence, Suit Idol Vinayaga is the title holder of the Suit Properties. The
vendors to the plaintiffs are mere managers who have no right to alienate
the Suit Properties and hence, the Suit is not maintainable. Further, the
defendants were not added as parties in the said Trust O.P.No.46 of 2004
and hence the Order passed therein is not binding on the defendants. The
First Appellate Court appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and
allowed the Appeal Suit and dismissed the Original Suit. There is no
reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, they would pray to dismiss
the Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 27
DISCUSSION:
11.This Court has heard on either side and perused the
materials available on record in light of the Substantial Questions of Law.
12.An extent of 1 Acre 90 Cents described as 'Naikkan
Kulathulvai Puravai Nanjai' was purchased under the Sale Deed,
registration copy of which has been marked as Ex-A.1, in the name of
Nanjundaiyar in his capacity as a Trustee of the Suit Vinayagar Idol
consecrated by him in Arulmigu Samba Parameshwara Swamy Temple
[Easwaran Temple] in Samayasangili Village. Ex-A.1 categorically recites
that the Suit Properties were purchased for the purpose of performing
poojas, charities and ceremonies to Suit Idol Vinayaga consecrated by the
purchaser in Easwaran Temple. Relevant extract of Ex-A.1 reads thus:
“1895 V etk;gh; kp 21 ehkf;fy; jhYfh
Jj;jpf;bfhsj;jpypUf;Fk; . . . . . . . . .
,uhka;ah; Fkhud; rkar';fpyp rpt
njt!;jhdj;jpypUf;Fk; tpdhafh; nfhtpy;
ou!;oahfpa Jj;jpf;bfhsk; kpl;lh $kPd;jhu;
eO;Rz;ila;aUf;F i# jhYfh . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ntyft[z;lh; i#ahh;
Fkhuh;fs; Rg;gpukzpa ft[z;lh; 2 ikdh;
eO;Rz;l ft[z;lh; 3 yf;fkpl;tUf;F fhh;oad;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 27
(1) ,yf;fkpl;lth; eh';fs; vGjpf; bfhLj;j
eO;ir epy Rj;jf;fpua !h!dk; ahbjdpy;
,jdoapy; tpthpj;jpUf;fpw eO;ir epyj;ij
epfGe;njjpay; ckf;F +gha; (475) f;F Rj;j
fpuaO; bra;J fpuaj; bjhifa[k; moapw; fz;l
rhjpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; buhf;fkha; bgw;Wf;
bfhz;L fpua brhj;ija[k; ck;kRthjPdj;jpy;
tpl;oUg;gij i# ePnu rh;t Rje;jpuj;Jld; ***
Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;st[k;. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ,e;j fpua
brhj;ij jpUr;br';nfhL jhYfh rkar';fpyp
mf;uQhuj;jpy; <Rtu njt!;jhdj;jpy; ck;khy;
gpujp#;il bra;jpUf;Fk; tpdhaf flt[Sf;F
g{i$ Kjypa if';fhpaj;Jf;fhf ck;khy;
th';fptplg;gl;ljhifahy; ck;k ngUf;F fpuak;
bra;ag;gl;oUf;fpwJ. *** ,jpy; 10-11 tJ
thpapy; 'jhdhjptpdpkpa tpf;fpua';fSf;F
nahf;fpakha;' vd;fpw thrfj;ij
mof;fg;gl;oUf;fpwJ. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. From the above, it can be seen that though a recital was
embedded in Ex-A.1 to the effect that the purchaser – Nanjundaiyyar as a
Trustee can enjoy the property covered thereunder [1 Acre 90 Cents] with
the right of alienation, it was later struck off by the parties thereto. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 27
intention of the parties thereto could very well be gathered from the act of
striking off the said recital. It is clear that the property measuring 1 Acre
90 Cents covered under Ex-A.1 was purchased for the purpose of
conducting poojas and ceremonies to Suit Idol Vinayaga consecrated in
Arulmigu Samba Parameshwara Swamy Temple, and the purchaser /
Trustee of the Suit Idol, has no power to alienate the Suit Properties.
14. Subsequently, Nanjundaiyar executed Ex-A.2 - Will,
wherein the said 1 Acre 90 Cents is listed as Item No.14 and referred to as
‘Pillaiyar Nilam’ under 'B' Schedule properties. Nanjundaiyyar has
emphasised in his Will that he has appointed his adopted son –
Sankararamaiyar as a manager of that property and that he shall manage
the same and use the income therefrom to perform poojas and religious
charities. In short, the dedication of the property covered under Ex-A.1 in
favour of Suit Idol has been reiterated in Ex-A.2. Relevant extract of the
Will is hereunder:
“B $hg;jhtpy; jpUkiy fpuhkk; 14
yf;fkpl;l epyj;ij jpUr;br';nfhL jhYf;fh
rkpar';fpypaf;fpufhuj;jpy; vd;dhy; gpujp#;il
bra;ag;gl;oUf;Fk; tpehaff; flt[s;
if';fhpaj;Jf;fhf tplg;gl;oUg;gjhy; mij
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 27
,dpnky; ehd; !;tPfhuO;bra;Jf; bfhs;Sk;
g[j;jpud; gupghypf;fj;jf;fJ. ”
15. In 1960, the adopted son – Sankararamaiyar executed the
Trust Deed marked as Ex-A.4, whereby, in addition to the property
purchased vide Ex-A.1 [1.90 Acre], he dedicated an extent of 6.10 Acres
in Naikkan Kulathulvai Puravai Nanjai to the Suit Idol. In the said Trust
Deed, it has been clearly recited that, as the income from the said portion
of Suit Properties, measuring 1.90 Acres dedicated by Nanjundaiyyar to
the Suit Idol for the performance of poojas and charities, is insufficient,
his adopted son – Sankararamaiyar is dedicating rest of the Suit Properties
to the Suit Idol for the same purpose. Thus, the entire Suit Properties were
dedicated to the Suit Idol. The Suit Idol was consecrated by
Nanjundaiyyar, and for continuous service of poojas and religious
charities as per the wish of Nanjundaiyyar, Ex-A.4 - Trust Deed has been
created by his adopted son – Sankararamaiyar. Relevant extract of Ex-
A.4 reads as hereunder:
“ . . . . . . vd; !;tPjhuh;fhu jfg;gdhh; 2.4.1905y;
vGjp itj;j capy; rh!dj;jpYk; i# brhj;J
i# tpdhaf flt[spd; g{i$ if';fhpaj;jpw;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 27
tplg;gl;L ,Ug;gjhft[k; mtUf;F gpd; ehd;
mij ghpghtpj;J tu ntz;oaJ vd;Wk;
fz;oUf;fpwhh;. mtUf;Fg;gpwF i# brhj;ij
ehd; ghpghtpj;J te;J i# epyj;jpypUe;J tUk;
tUkhdj;ij i# !;thkpapd; g{i$
if';fhpaj;jpw;F bfhLj;Jf; bfhz;L tUfpnwd;.
i# epyj;jpypUe;J tUk; tUkhdk;
i#!;thkpapd; g{i$ tifauh rpyt[fSf;F
nghjhJ vd;Wk; vd; !;tPfhu jfg;gdhh;
gpujp#;il bra;j !;thkpapd; g{i$ Kjypa
if';fhpa';fs; jl';fypy;yhky; rhptu ele;J
tuntz;Lk; vd;w vz;zj;jpdhYk; vdf;F
tajhfptpl;ljpdhYk; jw;rkak; vd; jpnaf!;jpjp
rhpahf ,y;yhky; ,Ug;gjhYk; ehd; ey;y
$Ptpaj;jpypUf;Fk; nghnj i# !;thkpapd;
if';fhpaj;jpw;F ,d;Dk; mjpf tUkhdk;
tUtjw;F Vw;ghL bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;w
vz;zk; bfhz;L moapy; tptupj;jpUf;fpw Rkhh;
+gha; 6000 kjpg;g[s;s epy';fis jpUr;br';nfhL
jhYf;fh rkar';fpyp mf;uQhuj;jpy; <!;tud;
nfhtpypy; vd; !;tPfhu jfg;gdhh; gpujp#;il
bra;jpUf;Fk; tpdhaf flt[Sf;F ,d;W Kjy;
tpl;Ltpl;nld;. ,dpnky; moapy; fz;l brhj;jpy;
tUk; tUkhdj;jpy; i# epy';fSf;F cz;lhd
rh;f;fhh; jPh;itiaa[k; me;j . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . epy';fismgptpUj;jp
bra;a Vw;gLk; rpyt[fisa[k; bra;Jtpl;L kPjp
bjhif g{uht[k; i# !;thkpapd;
if';fhpaj;jpw;nf vd; Fkhuh;fs; uhkehjd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 27
bt';fl;lukzd; fpU#;z\h;j;jp ,th;fs;
\tUk; Trustee fshf ,Ue;J bra;J
tuntz;oaJ. mth;fSf;F gpd; mth;fs; Mz;
thhpRjhuh;fs; Trustee fshf ,Ue;J nkny
brhy;ypa[s;sgo bra;J tuntz;oaJ i#
nfhtpypy; xU fhy; gpd;dpl;L g{i$ KjyhdJ
,y;yhky; mHpe;Jngha; tpl;lhy; ,e;j jh;kj;ij
mf;fhyj;jpa vd; thh;!;jhuhd l;u!;ofs;
j';fs; cfpjk; nghy; ntW ,ju jh;k';fSf;Fk;
cgnahfg;gLj;j mjpfhuKk; ,jd; \yk;
bfhLj;jpUf;fpnwd;. ,e;jg;gof;fp vd; rk;kjpapy;
vGjpitj;j l;u!;L gj;jpuk; i# nfhtpy; ,e;J
kj vz;nlhbkz;L nghh;Lf;Fr;
rk;ke;jg;gl;ljy;y . . . ”
16. From Ex-A.1, Ex-A.2 and Ex-A.4, it is easily discernible
that the Suit Properties absolutely belong to the said Idol Vinayaga.
Initially, Nanjundaiyar as a trustee / manager of the Suit Idol, purchased a
portion of the Suit Properties measuring 1.90 Acres and dedicated it to the
Suit Idol for performing poojas and other religious service to Suit Idol out
of the income derived therefrom, and thereafter, his adopted son -
Sankararamaiyar became the manager and dedicated the remaining
portion of the Suit Properties to the Suit Idol and was performing poojas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 27
and charities out of the income derived therefrom. It is clear that the Suit
Properties belong to Suit Idol and the grandsons of Sankararamaiyar are
just managers having no power of alienation over the Suit Properties. No
doubt that the legal status of an Idol is as that of a minor. If at all any
alienation is to be done for the benefit of an Idol, the manager should
obtain permission from the HR & CE Department or from the competent
Civil Court. To be noted, the Idol is not installed in a private property but
in the Suit Temple at Easwarankoil and hence, it can be understood that
the ultimate beneficiaries of the poojas and the religious charity
performed out of the income from the Suit Properties, are the worshippers
at large. The Suit Properties belong to the Suit Idol and the managers, or
any individual for that matter, cannot claim absolute title over the same.
Chelladurai’s Case (cited supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the
appellants / plaintiffs is factually deviant from the instant case. In that
case, this Court upon finding that the property is a Private Trust Property,
directed the Sub-Registrar to register Sale Deed, which is not the case
here. Hence, it is not applicable to the instant case.
17. The said Trust O.P.No.46 of 2004 was not maintainable at
all for the reason that the Suit Properties are not a Private Trust
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 27
Properties. As stated supra, it belongs to the Idol absolutely. Hence, the
Indian Trust Act, 1882 is not the applicable law. Further, neither the HR &
CE Department nor any Trustee / fit person of the Suit Temple where Suit
Idol is consecrated, was a party to the Trust Original Petition; there was
no respondent therein. Moreover, no reserve price was fixed for the sale
and public was not invited to participate in it. It is the duty of the Court
while selling a Trust property to take steps to ensure the highest sale price
[See R.Gopalakrishanan -vs- Tiruparankundam Arumuga Nainar
Trust, reported in 2013 (3) CTC 870]. In Ex-A.16 (eschewed) - Sale
Deed, even as per the executant, the market value of the Suit Properties
has been fixed at Rs.8,35,000/-. However, the sale consideration was
fixed at Rs.3,50,000/- and the same has been deposited in a Bank. Even
while assuming that the grandsons of Sankararamaiyar have power to
alienate the Suit Properties, the Sale under Ex-A.16 (eschewed) – Sale
Deed in favour of plaintiffs does not seem to be for the benefit of the Suit
Idol, as the sale consideration is less than that of the market value.
Further, the Sale ought to be a public auction sale [See Chenchu Rami
Reddy -vs- Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 3 SCC 391 and
R.Venugopala Naidu -vs- Venkatarayulu Charitable, 1989 Supp (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 27
SCC 356]. The procedure adopted by the Court in the said Trust Original
Petition is not in consonance with law. Hence, the said Order will neither
bind the Suit Idol nor the HR & CE Department.
18.The plaintiffs contend that possession was handed over
under Ex-A.12 - Sale Agreement dated October 8, 2003 pursuant to which
Ex-A.16 (eschewed) was executed. If that is really the case, Ex-A.12 -
Sale Agreement ought to have been registered as registration of Sale
Agreement is mandatory when possession is handed over in view of
Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Registration
of Other Related Laws Amendment Act, 2001 [Central Act No.48 of
2001]. Hence, Ex-A.12 – Sale Agreement would not confer any
possessory right on the plaintiffs and would not bind the Suit Idol.
Further, Ex-A.16 (eschewed) – Sale Deed was not registered. Section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, reads that sale of an immovable
property worth Rs.100/- or more is mandatorily registrable. That means,
Sale requires registration and it is complete only when registered; sale is
incomplete in the absence of registration. Hence, the Sale in this case is
not yet completed. Therefore, the plaintiffs would not acquire any title
over the Suit Properties in any manner. The relief of declaration sought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22 of 27
for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted based on Ex-A.16 (eschewed) -
Sale Deed, inter alia for it is an unregistered one.
19. The First Appellate Court's conclusion that the 'Public
Trust Act' would be the applicable law is an erroneous approach. To be
noted, there is no such Act in vogue in the State of Tamil Nadu. As far as
a trust property is concerned, if the property belonged to a Private Trust,
the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 alone would be applicable; as per Section 1 of
the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, it does not apply to Public Charitable Trusts.
If a property belongs to a Public Charitable Trust, applicable law is
Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As stated above, the Suit
Properties neither belong to Private Trust nor belong to a Public
Charitable Trust. On the other hand, the Suit Properties belong to Suit
Idol Vinayaka and therefore, come under the category of religious
endowment which is governed by the HR & CE Act.
20. Further, the First Appellate Court held that the Suit is
barred by limitation under Section 77 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The
First Appellate Court has misconstrued Section 77, which deals with
limitation for a statutory Suit contemplated thereunder. Here the Suit is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.23 of 27
one for declaration of title and other reliefs, and therefore, the plea that
the Suit is barred by limitation is not sustainable. Moreover, neither the
executant of Ex-A.16 (eschewed) – Sale Deed nor the Trustees under Ex-
A.7 – Trust Deed has been added as party to the Suit and hence, the Suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
21. To sum up, the Suit Properties absolutely belong to Suit
Idol Vinayaga which is a juristic person in whom title to the Suit
Properties vests. Though the Idol is the owner, Idol has to act through
some human agency and the agents are the Managers who have to take
proceedings on its behalf. In this case, Trustees / Managers have no power
to sell or alienate the Suit Properties. In case there arises a necessity to
alienate the Suit Properties for the purpose of carrying out religious
service uninterruptedly, the Managers must either obtain permission under
Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, or file a Suit before the competent Civil
Court seeking permission. The Trust Original Petition filed by the
Managers before the Principal District Court, Namakkal, under the Indian
Trusts Act, 1882 is not maintainable and the Order passed therein would
not bind the Suit Idol Vinayaka, for the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 is not
applicable to property absolutely dedicated to an Idol or religious
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.24 of 27
endowment and the Court was devoid of jurisdiction. The Trial Court is
not justifiable in decreeing the Suit. Though the First Appellate Court
rightly allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Original Suit, the reasons
assigned by it for its decisions are not right in law in the considered
opinion of this Court. Substantial Questions of Law are answered
accordingly.
CONCLUSION:
22. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Keeping in
mind the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
23 / 01 / 2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
TK
To
1.The Principal District Judge
Namakkal.
2.The Sub Court
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.25 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.26 of 27
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.NO.365 OF 2021
23 / 01 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.27 of 27
