Kallipattu Oothukattu Mariamman Temple vs Ayyanperumal Gounder

Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.—The point for determination in this appeal is whether there has been a proper presentation of the document for

registration u/s 32 of the Indian Registration Act.

One Arunachala Gounder, the paternal uncle of the defendant, was the trustee of a Mariamman Temple, and in the course of his administration

as trustee it was found that a sum of Rs. 500 was due from him to the temple. To make good that amount he arranged for the transfer of certain

property standing in the name of the defendant to the temple and got the defendant his nephew to execute a sale deed Exhibit A-3 in favour of the

plaintiff-temple with himself representing the temple mentioned in the sale deed as trustee. Exhibit A-3 was executed on 21st February, 1949 and

Arunachala Gounder the executant died on 28th February, 1949, before the document could be registered. The document was thereafter

presented for compulsory registration by the plaintiff Sarangapani Gounder, who represented himself to be the trustee of the temple. The

presentation was, however, after four months after the date of execution namely, on 28th June, 1949, with a request that the delay may be

excused. The defendant was summoned and he appeared before the Sub-Registrar and denied execution. The Sub-Registrar refused registration

and the District Registrar to whom an appeal was filed also refused registration of the document. Hence the present suit out of which this appeal

arises was instituted by Sarangapani Gounder u/s 77 of the Indian Registration Act for a decree directing the Registrar to register the document.

The trial Court found that Sarangapani Gounder was entitled to present the document for registration and decreed the suit. But in appeal the

learned District Judge, after examining the evidence and analysing it, found that the evidence regarding the election of Sarangapani Gounder as

trustee on 22nd March, 1949, was vague, discrepant and unreliable and held that he was not a trustee on the date of presenting the document for

registration and was therefore not entitled to present the document. Sarangapani relied on Exhibit A-6, a mahazar signed by several of the villagers,

showing that he had been elected as trustee. The document is dated 22nd June, 1949, but was actually presented before the Registrar on 28th

June, 1949. The finding of the lower appellate Court was that this mahazar was got up after taking legal advice. Another mahazar Exhibit B-2

stated to be a record of the proceedings of a meeting of the villagers held on 22nd June, 1949, signed by about 50 villagers stated that one

Balakrishnan and some others were elected as trustees at this meeting. In view of the conflicting evidence as to the election of the trustees of the

temple and relying on the deposition of the Village Munsif before the District Registrar, Cuddalore, the learned District Judge held that after the

Sub-Registrar raised an objection, Sarangapani Gounder managed to get a mahazar like Exhibit A-6 and presented it before the Registrar to show

that he was entitled to present the document for registration. With this finding, I am unable to find any ground for interference. Accepting that

finding, it is for consideration whether the presentation by Sarangapani Gounder on 28th June, 1949, of the document executed in favour of the

temple represented by the then trustee Arunachala Gounder is proper presentation u/s 32 of the Indian Registration Act.

Section 32 provides that every document to be registered shall be presented.

(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b)

by the representative or assign of such person, or (c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of-attorney

executed and authenticated in the manner hereinafter mentioned.

The person claiming under the sale is the temple. The document was executed in favour of the temple represented by the then trustee. The

trustee having died, Sarangapani Gounder must establish that he is the representative of the temple. The person who is competent to represent a

temple ordinarily would be its trustee. In view of its having been found that Sarangapani had not been elected as trustee, prima facie the

presentation is not proper presentation.

It is, however, urged now in Second Appeal that notwithstanding that Sarangapani Gounder has not proved that he has been duly elected as

trustee, he is at any rate a person interested in the trust being a worshipper and also entitled to exercise the franchise in electing a trustee and

therefore presentation by him would be a presentation by a representative of the temple and reliance is placed on the decisions in Gayeshali Sarkar

v. Chintaharan Chanda ILR (1930) Gal. 876 and Madhu Molla v. Babonsa Karikar ILR (1927) Cal. 1008, where it was held that presentation of

a document by some of the representatives of an executant who is dead at the time of the presentation would be proper presentation within the

meaning of the Act. But this point, however, was not raised in the lower Courts. This contention might be open to the appellant, if it is shown that

he is at least one of the trustees elected, and not when it has been found that he was not elected as trustee at all. The representative of a claimant in

this case must be a person who is competent to represent the temple either singly or along with others and it is only the trustees of the temple that

could properly represent the deity for the purpose of presentation of the document and not any worshipper. However, in this case, if the point had

been raised, the question would have arisen as to the accepted mode of appointing trustees, whether by election by the entire body of villagers or

by any other constituted body. This point raised by the appellant cannot, however, be considered without further investigation as to the manner in

which the temple is administered and as to whether there is any scheme for its administration and other matters, which have not been placed before

the Courts below. It is sufficient for the present to observe that any worshipper as such cannot be considered to be a representative of the claimant

temple for the purpose of presenting the document u/s 32 of the Indian Registration Act. Since the presentation of a document is a very important

and necessary formality which confers jurisdiction on the registering officer to exercise his powers under the Act, it must be in strict accordance

with the requirements of Section 32 of the Act.

The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed. Each party will bear their respective costs throughout. No leave.