Suit filed with certain ‘ulterior motive’, definitely not for benefit of temple: Madras High Court dismisses plea

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Dhandapani of the Madras High Court while dismissing a petition without any demur, held that the suit was laid with a certain “ulterior motive” and definitely “not for the benefit of the temple.” Court added that there was ‘something fishy’ in the entire transaction and action had to be taken against the hereditary temple trustee.

Court was hearing a petition assailing the order of refusal by the Joint Sub Registrar, Thousand lights, Chennai to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners, who are the buyer and sellers of the property (temple Devasthanam).

The petitioners sought issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar for his proceedings on the Refusal Order of 2022 and quash the same. They had consequently sought a direction to the Joint Sub Registrar to permit them to again present the returned sale deed dated December 8, 2021, for registration.

The petitioner's case was that the property in the Nungambakkam Village belonged to Arulmigu Agastheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Thirukkoil and the predecessors in-title, viz., N.Meeran and N.Sheriff, were the tenants in the abovementioned property. The hereditary trustee of the temple, viz., Valliammal, after terminating the tenancy of the petitioners had filed a suit for possession against Meeran and Sheriff before the Civil Judge Court, Madras.

Meeran and Sheriff claimed protection under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and in March 1990, the court had directed the temple to execute the sale deed in favor of them. Subsequently, Valliammal executed the sale deed in their favor.

It is further the case of the petitioner that in 1992, M.E. Siddiqa purchased the property from Meeran and Sheriff by a registered sale deed and since then had been paying all the property tax, water tax, etc. and the patta stands mutated in the name of Siddiqa.

In 2021 Siddiqa intended to settle the property in favor of her daughter through a settlement deed, which when presented, was refused and returned along with a letter stating that the Executive officer had requested the Joint Sub Registrar II not to entertain any documents for registration relating to the temple properties situated at Nungambakkam Village.

When Siddiqa approached the Commissioner HR &CE and the Executive officer, she came to learn about the pendency of the contempt petition of 2019, and that the order made by the Joint Registrar II cannot be revoked. Thereafter, when the contempt petition was closed by the court in 2021, the petitioner again presented the W.P No. 9336 of 2018 as the 2019 contempt petition had attained finality and now, the Executive officer could recall the order given by the Joint Registrar II.

Since her aforementioned presentation did not evoke any response, Siddiqa filed a petition assailing the impugned check slip and consequently, the high court on December 1, 2021, had ordered the Joint registrar II to register the settlement deed after conducting an inquiry.

During the pendency of the inquiry, Siddiqa executed the sale deed in favor of Super Good Films Pvt. Ltd., and the same was kept as a pending document. Super Good Films paid the requisite stamp duty and other charges to Joint Registrar II for registration and the release of documents. Subsequently, the petitioners via a notice had to appear for inquiry before the Joint Registrar along with the original documents on January 28, 2022.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Meeran and Sheriff had purchased the property in 1990, before the amendment to the City Tenants Protection Act and that before 1996, lands belonging to various religious institutions had been sold. Based on their application the sale that took place before the amendment to the Act could not be said to be illegal or vitiated, or perverse.

It was further submitted that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed as contemplated u/s 9(1)(b) of the City Tenants Protection Act to decide on the minimum extent of land required for the tenant for his peaceful occupation and upon submission of the report, the court directed the execution of sale deed in favor of Meeran and Sheriff.

Despite the direction passed by the court in 2018 that only the lands, which have been sold in violation of S.34 of the HR & CE Act, their recovery had been ordered. However, the lands that were sold on the order passed in their sale could not be questioned by the Commissioner HR &CE and Executive Officer, as they are not vested with any power to question the said sale, further submitted the counsel for petitioners.

It was further added that despite the order passed by the single bench in 2021, filed by Siddiqa, The Joint Sub Registrar II was directed to register the document after conducting the inquiry, however, relying upon the letter by the Commissioner HR &CE and Executive Officer, the Joint Sub Registrar II was barred from registering the sale, and accordingly, he rejected the document of the petitioners, as it suffered from the vice of illegality and perversity.

It was further submitted that the prohibition for sale imposed u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act and the non-impleadment of the HR & CE Department in the application filed u/s 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act is “baseless” and “frivolous”. As the aforementioned Act permits the tenant, in case of a suit for ejectment, to file an appropriate application for purchase of the minimum extent of land for his convenient usage and it does not mandate impleadment of the HR & CE Department while applying S.9.

It was further submitted that the fixation of the value of the property is based on the application filed u/s 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and the higher sale consideration in which the property was sold within two years cannot be a ground to claim that the sale is voidable.

Furthermore, it was submitted that there is strict compliance with S.9 & 3 of the City Tenants Protection Act, and based on the order passed by the court, the sale deed has been executed by Valliammal in favor of the Meeran and Sheriff. The Commissioner HR &CE and Executive Officer cannot, after a lapse of more than thirty years, claim that the sale is a fraudulent transaction and is in contravention of S.34 of the HR & CE Act and the consequential letter and the act of the Joint Sub Registrar II in not registering the sale deed and passing the order impugned are “wholly perverse”, “illegal”, “arbitrary” and “irregular” and the same deserves to be quashed.

On the Contrary, Learned Special Government Pleader (Spl. GP) for the Commissioner HR &CE and Executive Officer submitted that the father of Meeran and Sherrif was a tenant under the temple and that he passed away in 1986, and within four months the tenancy was terminated by issuing legal notice in 1987. It was submitted that no material whatsoever was filed by Meeran and Sheriff to prove that they were tenants following the death of their father.

Spl.GP further contended that after the 2021 order was passed, Siddiqa had executed the sale deed in favor of Super Good Films, which was kept pending. Meanwhile, Siddiqa had settled the property in favor of her daughter, which documents when sought to be registered, were rejected given the letter of the Commissioner HR &CE and Executive Officer. In the said writ petition, an order was passed to register the said settlement deed after conducting an inquiry.

Spl. GP further contended that an order was passed to register the abovementioned settlement deed after conducting an inquiry, but without giving effect to the said order Siddiqa had conveyed the property in favor of Super Good Films and presented it for registration, such act was wholly in contravention of the order passed in W.P. No.25544/21.

By letter dated January 27, 2022, the petitioners had addressed the Joint Sub Registrar II after the execution of the sale deed in favor of Meeran and Sheriff in 1990, the temple authorities had lost all their rights by efflux of time. That without waiting for the inquiry to be conducted by the Joint Sub Registrar II, Siddiqa had alienated the property in favor of Super Good Films, which reveals the “suspect conduct” of the petitioner, further stated Spl. GP.

The sale consideration between the sale effected to Meeran and Sheriff and the purchase made reveals that within about two years, an “increase of twenty-five times” the value of the land purchased had been shown, which clearly shows that Valliammal, had acted hand in glove with Meeran and Sheriff to transfer the property, added Spl. GP.

It was further added that Valliammal, had sold the property in favor of Meeran and Sheriff without complying with S.34 of the HR & CE Act, which is wholly illegal and against the statute. That even if S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act clothes them for buying the portion of the land of the temple, still the said provision has to be followed only after satisfying S.34 of the Act and any infraction thereon would render the sale void and a fraudulent one.

Subsequently, Spl.GP for Joint Sub Registrar II, in not registering the property coincided with the submissions of the Commissioner HR &CE and Executive Officer and argued that solely based on the directions issued by the Division Bench in 2018, the Joint Sub Registrar II had denied registering the sale deed executed by Siddiqa in favor of Super Good Films and the said act aligns with the power of the Joint Sub Registrar II and hence, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

Court noted, “There is no dispute about the fact that the lands, which were alienated by Valliammal, belonged to the temple, and Meeran and Sheriff claimed their right to purchase the said property by a tenancy agreement, which is alleged to have been entered into between the temple and their father.” 

Court pointed out, “The land belonged to the temple and the hereditary trustee is merely the custodian of the property, and he must utilize the property for the benefit of the temple. In the case on hand, the suit has been laid by the hereditary trustee seeking recovery of possession on the ground that the rent has not been properly paid, which in effect means that the amount obtained by way of rent is to be utilized for the benefit of the temple.” “However, in the suit, the tenant has filed the application seeking the sale of the property, which has been ordered by the court below,” said Court.

Court further opined, “two ingredients are necessary for invoking S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act relating to the sale of the land, viz., that there should be a superstructure put up for the enjoyment of the tenant and that the Court, adjudicating the issue, should, upon holding an inquiry, be satisfied that the land is required for the convenient enjoyment of the tenant. Only upon satisfaction of these twin conditions, can the court order the land to be sold in favor of the tenant, that too only about the piece of land, which alone is required for the convenient enjoyment of the tenant and nothing more.” 

Furthermore, Court noted “that S.3 of the City Tenants Protection Act specifically deals with payment of compensation to the tenant upon ejectment, and that compensation is to be paid towards the value of the superstructure put up by the tenant in the said property. It is evident that the existence of superstructure is a sine qua non to payment of compensation upon ejectment.”

“However, there is no material available on record, either filed by the tenant or in the order of the court below to show that there existed a superstructure and towards the enjoyment of the same, the land upon which the superstructure is put up is necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the tenant and only in such a scenario, S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act comes into play,” stated Court.

“This Court, even for a moment, is not subscribing to the view that the amendment to the City Tenants Protection Act applies to the case of Meeran and Sheriff. But de hors its application, would the non-compliance of the provision u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act, make the sale void is the issue that falls for determination,” further stated Court.

“Sub-section (1) of S.34 of the HR & CE Act, extracted supra, mandates that in respect of 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 purposes, of any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution,” noted Court.

So far as any alienation of property of any nature, about any religious institution, as provided in S. 34 (1) of the HR & CE Act is involved, the prior permission of the competent authority, as provided u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act is mandatory, it further noted.

Court observed, “The entire sequence of events from the filing of the suit to its dismissal for default clearly shows that it is only an account of the collusive act between the trustee and the tenants, which has resulted in the filing of the suit. Only to avoid such collusive acts between the trustee and the tenants, leading to erosion of the valuable assets of the temple, the HR & CE Act contemplates the approval of the appropriate authority involving alienation of any property belonging to the temple.

“It should not be lost sight of that the value of the property was quantified at Rs.20,852.50 and the lands were sold in favor of the vendors of the 2nd petitioner in the year 1987 but within two years, in the year 1989, the lands were sold for a price of Rs.5.50 Lacs. Though this Court is not concerned with the sale consideration about the two different sale transactions, however, the enormity of the second sale transaction has a bearing as it affects the larger interests of the temple,” noted Court.

“The interest of the temple is of paramount consideration, when the property of the temple, which is put in the hands of the trustee for being utilized properly for the benefit of the temple, is sold for peanuts unmindful of the interest of the temple and a duty is cast upon this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the sale transaction, else not only the larger interest of the temple would be jeopardized, but justice would also be denied for the temple and the Presiding Deity, which is the owner of the temple. The scales of justice tilt in favor of the temple and call for the invocation of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction” observed Court.

Conclusively, Court observed, “The fact that no approval had been obtained u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act, definitely renders the sale void, even if the said sale has been at the instance of the Court, as even the trial court cannot restrict the plaintiff from obtaining the requisite permission as mandated u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act. Extraordinary situations warrant invocation of extraordinary powers, which is vested on this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

“Accordingly, this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction is inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No.15824/87 in O.S. No.5802/87 as "perverse" and "unreasonable", and in the absence of approval u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act, the alienation of the lands by way of sale to the tenants, Meeran and Sherrif by the trustees, viz., the plaintiff, is "void" and the said sale also deserves to be set aside,” ordered Court.

“Consequently upon the said finding, the sale entered into by Meeran and Sherrif with Siddiqa and the sale of the said lands by Siddiqa to Super Good Films is without valid title and the said sale transactions also deserve to be declared as void,” added Court.

“Given the above, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Joint Sub Registrar II and, accordingly, the said refusal order is confirmed,” further ordered Court.

Accordingly, Court dismissed the present petition. 

Case Title: M/s Super Good Films Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Commissioner HR & CE Dpt. And Others