AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the return endorsement made by the second respondent, Sub-
registrar, Srirangam, on 09.03.2005 and for a consequential direction to direct the Sub-registrar to register the petitioner''s Sale Deed in respect of
house property and land in Old door No. 1092, (New Door No. 45), coming under Ward 1, Melachitrai Street, in T.S. No. 2084 Block, 53,
Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam Town.
The writ petition was admitted on 07.04.2005 and notice was ordered to the respondents. On behalf of the third respondent temple, certain
documents were filed in the typed set of papers. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit dated 15.09.2008.
The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the property from his vendor one S.T.Ramasamy for a valuable consideration of Rupees 7.5
Lakhs. In turn his vendor had purchased the said property from one Mythili by a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1994. Since revenue records,
electricity connection and water connection were in the name of the vendor and the title deeds were also perused, he paid the sale consideration. A
sale deed was prepared and presented to the second respondent, Sub Registrar, on 09.03.2005 for registration.
The second respondent informed the petitioner that the said Town Survey No. belonged to the third respondent temple and in view of Section
22A of the Registration Act and G.O.Ms. No. 150, CT&RE, Department, dated 22.09.2000, the said document could not be registered by the
Sub Registrar''s Office. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the action of the second respondent in refusing to register the document presented to
him.
Strong reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Captain Dr. R. Bellie and Dr. Smt. Seetha Bellie Vs. The Sub
Registrar, , wherein the Supreme Court has held that Section 22-A of the Registration Act is ultra vires. Therefore, it was contended that any G.O.
issued tracing its sources of power to Section 22-A of the Registration Act is also invalid. Exception was also taken to the third respondent in not
having filed any counter. A further statement was made that Inam C.M.A. No. 32/1978 ordered by the Fifth Additional Subordinate Judge,
Trichirappali, cannot be a final document. It is also stated that from the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment and
therefore, the Sub-registrar should be directed to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the temple produced the judgment and decree of the Inam Abolition Tribunal (V
Additional Sub-Judge, Trichi) in Inam CMA. No. 32/78 filed by the third respondent temple. In that order, the petitioner properties original
vendor one Ranganaiyakiammal W/o Krishnamachari was shown as the 19th respondent having their residential address No. 45, West Chitrai
Street, which property the petitioner claims to have purchased with the present sale deed. In that order, the Inam Tribunal set aside the order of
the Settlement Tahsildar dated 29.07.1967 and consequentially a ryotwari patta was directed to be issued in favour of the third respondent temple.
In the description of the property appended to the order, the T.S. No. 2084 has been mentioned as item No. 18.
When the third respondent had secured an order in their favour with a direction to issue patta, it is not open to the petitioner to come forward to
state that he has purchased the house and land property in the same survey no and that it should be registered by the Sub Registrar without any
objection.
Mr. R. Subramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Inam Tribunal''s order is pending in appeal before the Special
Appellate Tribunal. But he is not able to state whether any interim order has been obtained. Ever otherwise, he submitted that the Court is
concerned only with the merits or demerits of the endorsement made by the second respondent. Insofar as the the second respondent had relied
upon Section 22-A as well as G.O.Ms. No. 150 CT&RE, Department, dated 22.09.2000, the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is
entitled to have his document registered.
Even for argument sake, if it is to be taken that the petitioner had purchased the house for a valuable consideration from his vendors that by itself
cannot give any vested right to the petitioner to get his document registered without any further verification. Assuming that Section 22-A of the
Registration Act is held to be unconstitutional and G.O.Ms. No. 150 is unenforceable, even then, if the real owner of the property comes before
this Court and seeks for a direction against the Registrar from registering any property belonging such real owner, certainly a direction can be given
to the Registrar not to register any document in respect of the property over which the purchasers have no valid legal title.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to Section 34(1) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which reads as follows:
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 [the
Commissioner] as being necessary or beneficial to the institution.
Therefore, any sale of a temple land without the sanction by the Commissioner is declared to be null and void. When the sale is held to be
void, the question of the petitioner coming forward with a plea that he had purchased it with a valuable consideration cannot be countenanced by
this Court.
The Supreme Court in its decision in A.A. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others, , cautioned about the misuse of temple
properties and the need to protect such properties. Speaking for the Court K.G.Balakrishnan, C.J., in paragraph.10 of the said judgment, it is
observed as follows:
10.The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees / archakas / shebaits /
employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and
Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession.
This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ""fences eating the crops"" should be dealt with
sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It
is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
The Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2006 1 SCC 287, Joint Commmr.,Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Admn.
Department v. Jayaraman and Ors. restored the land to the temple which was sold by orders of the Court by filing application u/s 34 of the Indian
Trusts Act. The sale and the subsequent patta obtained were held to be invalid. While holding so, the Supreme Court forewarned attempts by
certain people to corner the temple properties and therefore, the following passaged found in para:12, may be reproduced below:
It is seen that there has been a clear attempt by the claimants to overreach the deities and the authorities under the HR & CE Act, while
managing the properties dedicated for the purposes of the temple, properties granted and managed by them in their capacities as poojaris, for the
maintenance of the temples. The attempt has to be deprecated.
The arguments of Mr. R. Subramaniam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that whatever document is dumped on the Registrar should be
registered without any questioning, cannot be accepted. The petitioner is seeking for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to the authorities for
registering his document. Such a writ petition is an equitable remedy and the Court''s power to issue such Writs are discretionary. When a person
comes before this Court seeking for a direction to register his property, he must be able to prove to this Court that he has a clear title. Even
otherwise, if the real owner of the property also appears, before the Court and objects to the registration by the Registrar, then the parties must be
relegated to appropriate Civil Court for determining the question of title. Otherwise, the office of the Registrar will become mere a post office the
only duty being collecting stamp duty to fill the governments coffers.
So long as the third respondent temple is able to satisfy this Court that they are the real owners and eligible to get patta for the land in question,
this Court cannot give any direction to a statutory authority to perform a duty which will be violating provisions of law. In such circumstances, this
Court can decline to grant relief to the petitioner.
In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and will stand dismissed. No costs.