Arulmigu Kallalagar Thirukoil v. Dinakaran

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Tuesday, the Fifth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.S.RAMESH AND The Hon`ble Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE WA(MD). Nos.203, 241 & 332 of 2024 Arulmigu Kallalagar Thirukoil Through its Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer, Alagarkovil, Melur Taluk,Madurai District.

... Appellant in all WAs Vs 1 Dinakaran 2 The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.

3 The Sub Registrar, Thamaraipatti @ Chittampatti, Madurai District.

4 The Additional Chief Secretary And Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai.

...Respondents in WA(MD)No.203/24

1 The Commissioner, The Office of the Commissioner of Land Administation Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2 The District Revenue Officer Madurai District, Madurai.

3 The Revenue Divisional Office, Melur, Madurai District.

4 The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

5 The Sub Registrar, Thamaraipatti Sub-Registrar Office, Melur Main Road, Madurai.

6 Smt.Alamelu Mangai, D/o.Periaswamy Ambalam Trustee, Kallanthiri Ki Mu.Kalluvedi Karuppanan Ambalam Mandagapadi Thaneer Pandal Dharaman Trust, Kallanthiri, Alagarkovil via, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

7 M.Dinakaran

...Respondents in WA(MD)No.241/24

1 The Commissioner, The Office of the Commissioner Of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2 The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

4 The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

5 The Sub Registrar, Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office, Melur Main Road, Madurai.

6 Alamelu Mangai D/o. Periaswamy Ambalam Trustee Kallanthiri Ki.Mu. Kalluvedi Karuppanan Ambalam Mandagapadi Thaneer Pandal Dharmam

Trust Kallanthiri, Alagarkovil via, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

7 M.Dinakaran, 8 R.Madhumitha, 9 J.S.Amarnath 10 S.Nirmala 11 R.Devarajan, 12 F.Anulamary 13 S.John Peter 14 J.Punitha 15 M.Arockiyam 16 D.Rohini, 17 S.Vanitha, 18 K.Sundararaman 19 P.Sundari 20 G.M.Palsanthiyagu 21 S.A.Jeromeraj 22 K.Thirumurugan, 23 T.J.Gnaneeswari 24 R.Savitha

25 M/s. L and T Housing Finance Limited L and T House N.M.Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001.

...Respondents in WA(MD)No.332/24

Prayer in WA(MD). No.203 of 2024:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent, prayed that this Hon'ble Court to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in the WP(MD)No.14929 of 2020 on the file of this Court in respect of Survey No.65/1-B measuring 3.18.5 Hectares in Poikaraipatty Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District. Prayer in WP(MD). 14929/ 2020 :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court. to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.73/2019 dt. 26.08.2019 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of S.No. 65/1B measuring 3.18.5 Hectares of Poikaraipatti Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.

Prayer WA(MD). No.241 of 2024:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Hon'ble Court to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in the WP(MD)No.15725 of 2021 on the file of this Court in respect of Survey No.65/1-B measuring 3.18.5 Hectares in Poikaraipatty Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District. Prayer in WP(MD).

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the impugned Sale deed dated 01.10.2013, executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent, on the file of the 5th respondent, under Document No.2277 of 2013 pertaining to encumbrance of the endowment property of the petitioner temple under S.No.65/1B, Poyyakaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to call for order passed by the 1st respondent under proceeding No.D.Dis K4/RP43/2002 (7854/02) dated 17.04.2014, pertaining to retaining the Patta in the name of 6th respondent relating to the endowment property under S.No.65/1B Poyyakaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to quash the said Sale deed and to quash the

2nd impugned order as as far as retaining the patta to the property under S.No.65/1B, Poyyakaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai in the name of the 6th Respondent and direct the respondents 1 to 4 grant patta to the property under S.No.65/1B,Poyyakaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai, in favour of the Petitioner Temple.

Prayer in WA(MD)No.332/24:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Hon'ble Court to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 made in the WP(MD)No.15513 of 2021 on the file of this Court in respect of Survey No.65/1-B measuring 3.18.5 Hectares in Poikaraipatty Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.. Prayer in W.P. 15513 of 2021:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ or direction, to call for the Impugned Sale deed on the file of the 5th Respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.904 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 8th Respondent, Impugned Sale deed on the file of the 5th Respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.

905 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 8th Respondent, Impugned Sale deed on the file of the 5th Respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.906 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 9th Respondent, Impugned Sale deed on the file of the 5th Respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.907 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 10th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of 5th respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.908 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 11th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.909 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 12th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 13.04.2016 Doc.No.

910 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the respondents 13,14 and 15, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.912 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 16th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.913 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 17th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.914 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 18th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.

5th respondent 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.916 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 20th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 19.05.2016 under Doc.No.919 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 20th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 19.05.2016 under Doc.No.920 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 21st respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 15.06.2016 under Doc.No.954 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 22nd respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent 25.06.2016 under Doc.No.1221 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 23rd respondent, impugned Gift Settlement deed on the file of the 5th respondent 09.08.2016 under Doc.No.

1328 of 2016 executed by the 8th Respondent in favour of the 24th respondent, impugned Memorandum of Deposit of Title deed on the file of the 5th respondent 07.10.2016 under Doc.No.1626 of 2016 executed by the 18th Respondent in favour of the 25th respondent, pertaining to encumbarance of the endowment property of the petitioner Temple under S.No.65/1B, Poyyakaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to quash the said impugned sale document and for consequentital order.

ORDER:- These Appeals coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Appeals filed thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru.S.Manohar, Advocate for the Appellants and Thiru.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel for Mrs.K.M.Priscilla Jancy, Advocate for 1st Respondent in WA(MD) No.203/2024 and 7th Respondent in WA(MD)Nos.241 & 332/2024, Thiru.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader for 2nd to 4th Respondents in WA (MD)No.203/2024, 1st to 5th Respondents in WA(MD)Nos.241 & 332/2024 and Mr.Ramasundar Vijaya Raj, Advocate for the 6th Respondent in WA(MD)Nos.241 & 332/2024, this Court made the following order: To the challenge made against the common order passed in WP(MD) No.14929/2020 etc., batch, dated 06.12.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed a final order on 08.08.2024 in the following manner: "All these writ appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 06.12.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.14929 of 2020, W.P. (MD)No.15513 of 2021 and 15725 of 2021.

2.1. The prayer of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.14929 of 2020 is as follows:

To issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.73/2019, dated 26.08.2019, quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of Survey No.65/1B, measuring 3.18.5 Hectares of Poikaraipatti Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.

2.2. The prayer of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15513 of 2021 is as follows:

To issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.904 of 2016 executed by the 7th Respondent in favour of the 8th Respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5threspondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.905 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 8th Respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5threspondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.906 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 9th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.907 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in

favour of the 10th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.908 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 11th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc.No.909 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 12th Respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 13.04.2016 under Doc. No.910 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the respondents 13, 14 and 15, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5threspondent dated 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.912 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 16th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.

913 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 17th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.914 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 18th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.915 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 19th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 12.05.2016 under Doc.No.916 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 20th respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 19.05.2016 under Doc.No.

respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 19.05.2016 under Doc.No.920 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 21st respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 15.06.2016 under Doc.No.954 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 22nd respondent, impugned sale deed on the file of the 5th respondent dated 25.06.2016 under Doc.No.1221 of 2016 executed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 23rd respondent, impugned Gift Settlement deed on the file of the 5threspondent dated 09.08.2016 under Doc.No.1328 of 2016 executed by the 8threspondent in favour of the 24th respondent and Impugned Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on the file of the 5th respondent dated 07.10.2016 under Doc. No.1626 of 2016 executed by the 18th respondent in favour of the 25th respondent, pertaining to encumbrance of the endowment property of the petitioner temple under S. No. 65/1B, Poikaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to quash the said impugned documents.

2.3. The prayer of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15725 of 2021 is as follows:

To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned Sale deed dated 01.10.2013, executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent, on the file of the 5th respondent, under Document No.2277 of

2013 pertaining to encumbrance of the endowment property of the petitioner Temple under S.No.65/1B, Poikaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to call for order passed by the 1st respondent under proceeding No.D.Dis K4/RP43/2002 (7854/02) dated 17.04.2014, pertaining to retaining the Patta in the name of 6th respondent relating to the endowment property under S.No.65/1B Poikaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to quash the said Sale deed and to quash the 2nd impugned order as far as retaining the Patta to the property under S.No.65/1B, Poikaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai in the name of the 6threspondent and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant patta to the property under S.No.65/1B, Poikaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai in favour of the petitioner Temple.

3. Two of the writ petitions, namely, W.P(MD)No.15513 and 15725 of 2021 were filed by the appellant temple, seeking to quash the orders of the Sub Registrar. The entire dispute centres around the right claim by the temple in respect of the property in Survey No.65/1B. It is not in dispute that the said property belonged to one Paramasamy Ambalam who had executed a settlement deed dated 9thJuly 1940. The question, that is raised in all these proceedings is as to whether the settlement deed creates an absolute endowment /

dedication in favour of the temple or not. An ancillary question is also raised on the nature of the will, that is said to have been executed by Paramasivam Ambalam on 24.10.1977. All these questions are essentially, questions that have to be decided by a competent Civil Court or the machinery provided under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Writ Court does not have the power to decide the questions of fact which would involve the appreciation of evidence.

4. Generally, a Writ Petition will not be entertained by the Constitutional Courts, if an effective alternative remedy is available. In the case on hand, we find that apart from the inability of the writ Court is to decide the questions of facts, an alternative remedy is also available to the petitioner temple, it can either seek a declaration before the competent Civil Court or move the Authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, if they have jurisdiction to decide the issue. We should not be understood as having pronounced on the jurisdiction of the Authority. All that the learned Single Judge has done is to direct the temple to approach a Civil Court. We are therefore, unable to find a fault in the order of the learned Single Judge for having concluded

that these issues cannot be conveniently decided in the writ proceedings.

5. Therefore, W.A.(MD)Nos.241 and 332 of 2024 are dismissed.

6. As far as the W.P.(MD)No.14929 of 2020 is concerned, W.P. (MD)No.14929 of 2020 was filed by the 7th respondent and the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition on the conclusion that the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the instrument of sale in as much as the temple has conceded the title in the revision before the Commission. We also find that there is callous indifference on the part of the Sub Registrar concerned when he passed an order impugned in W.P.(MD)No.14929 of 2020. A refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar was questioned before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20701 of 2018. The Writ Court set aside the order and required the Sub Registrar to follow the procedure prescribed by this Court in the case of Sudha Ravikumar .vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.

Department, Chennai, reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135. The Sub Registrar, however, without following the procedure choose to short circuit the entire issue and attempted to pull a fast one on this Court by referring to para No.

presentant of the sale deed to the Civil Court. We are convinced that either the Sub Registrar did not understand the language (English) or that he had done it wantonly because of the failure on the part of the presentant of the sale deed to grease his palms. The Inspector General of Registration is directed to take appropriate disciplinary action against the Sub Registrar for dereliction of duty and file a report on the action taken before this Court within a period of three months from today.

7. Adverting to the merits of this case, we find that the temple has conceded a title of the vendor of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14929 of 2023 before the Special Commissioner and an attempt of the temple to withdraw the concession has also been rejected by the Commissioner. We have upheld the order of rejection in W.P.(MD) No.3126 of 2023. Therefore as things stand as of today, the Registrar cannot refuse to register any sale deed on the basis of objection by the temple. Therefore the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in not only setting aside the order of the Registrar but also observing that the Registrar cannot refuse to register the documents executed by the 7th respondent or any person claiming under them. Since we have found that the temple can still seek to establish its right in a manner

known to law. We must observe here that the temple is entitled to establish its rights in the manner known to law before a proper forum without attempting shortcut method, like invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

8. With the above observations W.A.(MD)No.203 of 2024 is also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

9. It will be open to both the parties to make all claims or defences available to them under law in the event, proceedings are taken.

10. Post the matter on 03.11.2024, for reporting compliance."

2. In view of certain observations made at the end of Paragraph 6 of that order directing the Inspector General of Registration to take appropriate disciplinary action against the Sub Registrar, these appeals are listed today under the caption, 'for reporting compliance'.

3. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of a charge memo dated 05.11.2024, whereby charges have been framed against the Sub Registrar under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

4. In view of the same, the direction already issued by this Court has been

complied with and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in these writ appeals.

5. However, we hasten to add here that the earlier observations made in the final order dated 08.08.2024 are only on a prima facie view, for the purpose of exploring as to whether there could be any misconduct on the part of the Sub Registrar, which facts can be revealed only after conduct of a proper domestic enquiry. It is needless to point out that the delinquent officer, who has now been served with the charge memo, should be extended with due opportunities during the course of enquiry and the principles of natural justice shall be strictly adopted. We also would like to stress that whatever observations made in our earlier order dated 08.08.2024 are only on a prima facie view and therefore, neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority shall be influenced by any of the remarks made in the said order, but shall conduct an independent enquiry on its own merits and take further course of action in accordance with law.

6. With the above observation, the writ appeals are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar( CS I ) // True Copy // /12/2024 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-1/II/III/IV)

TO

1. The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.

2. The Sub Registrar, Thamaraipatti @ Chittampatti, Madurai District.

3. The Additional Chief Secretary And Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

4. The Commissioner The Office of the Commissioner of Land Administation Chepauk Chennai - 600 005.

5. The District Revenue Officer Madurai District, Madurai.

6. The Revenue Divisional Office Melur, Madurai District.

7. The Tahsildar Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

8. The Sub Registrar Thamaraipatti Sub-Registrar Office Melur Main Road, Madurai.

9. The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai Copy to:

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

ORDER DATED : 05/11/2024 ==========================

ORDER

========================== WA(MD). No.203 of 2024 Giving direction and etc.

as stated within.

BV (16/12/2024) 17P/ 11C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.