Madras HC Sets Aside Sale Of Properties Endowed In 1907 For Temple Rituals [Read Judgment]
story
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has reversed a lower Court’s order granting permission to the hereditary trustees of a religious endowment to sell immovable properties that had been endowed in 1907 for conducting rituals in various temples.The Bench comprising Justice A. Selvam and Justice N. Authinathan held that the permission was bad in law since none of the beneficiary temples and...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has reversed a lower Court’s order granting permission to the hereditary trustees of a religious endowment to sell immovable properties that had been endowed in 1907 for conducting rituals in various temples.
The Bench comprising Justice A. Selvam and Justice N. Authinathan held that the permission was bad in law since none of the beneficiary temples and their idols had been included as defendants to the civil suit filed by the trustees.
“According to the plaint averments (paragraph No.5), the income from the 'B to F' schedule properties were endowed for the performance of Upayams and Kaingaryams to the several temples set out in the settlement deed. Therefore, idols/temples are necessary parties to the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,” the Court observed.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by The Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple in Srirangam, challenging a judgment passed in July, 2011 by the I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The suit before the ADJ had been filed by the present trustees, the grandsons and great grandsons of Mr. Rangasamy Chettiar, against an individual named L. Balamurugan in 2009, contending that the latter was objecting to the proposed sale of the properties, even though the income from them was not sufficient to perform the rituals. The lower Court had then permitted the sale of the properties, concluding that such sale was necessary.
Challenging this order, the Idol had now contended that the permission for the sale should have been obtained only from the HR and CE Commissioner. The trustees, on the other hand, had contended that there was no necessity to approach the HR and CE Commissioner since the endowment was not completely religious.
The Court pointed out that Nambi Ramakrishnan Chettiar and his adopted son Rangasamy Chettiar had left behind several properties for performance of charities in temples, through a settlement deed. This deed, however, did not confer any powers on the trustees to sell the properties.
Further, it noted that the purchaser had claimed that he had converted the immovable properties into residential plots and sold them to different individuals since permission was granted in 2011. The Court, however, declared the sale to be void and ordered repayment of the sale consideration of Rs. 55.5 lakh to him with interest.
The Bench further opined that a public auction should have been conducted for the sale, and observed, “In the case at hand, there is nothing on record to show that there are compelling reasons to depart from the mode of public auction so as to justify the sale in favour of the 8th respondent. There is no clear direction in the judgment to sell the property by public auction. The Court has also not fixed the reserve price as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial court suffers from infirmities and the matter requires fresh consideration.”
It thereafter remanded the case back to the Trial Court, to hear the case after impleading the Appellants and other beneficiaries as defendants to the suit. All the parties were directed to appear before the District Court on July 20.
Read the judgment here
Full View
The Bench comprising Justice A. Selvam and Justice N. Authinathan held that the permission was bad in law since none of the beneficiary temples and their idols had been included as defendants to the civil suit filed by the trustees.
“According to the plaint averments (paragraph No.5), the income from the 'B to F' schedule properties were endowed for the performance of Upayams and Kaingaryams to the several temples set out in the settlement deed. Therefore, idols/temples are necessary parties to the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,” the Court observed.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by The Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple in Srirangam, challenging a judgment passed in July, 2011 by the I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The suit before the ADJ had been filed by the present trustees, the grandsons and great grandsons of Mr. Rangasamy Chettiar, against an individual named L. Balamurugan in 2009, contending that the latter was objecting to the proposed sale of the properties, even though the income from them was not sufficient to perform the rituals. The lower Court had then permitted the sale of the properties, concluding that such sale was necessary.
Challenging this order, the Idol had now contended that the permission for the sale should have been obtained only from the HR and CE Commissioner. The trustees, on the other hand, had contended that there was no necessity to approach the HR and CE Commissioner since the endowment was not completely religious.
The Court pointed out that Nambi Ramakrishnan Chettiar and his adopted son Rangasamy Chettiar had left behind several properties for performance of charities in temples, through a settlement deed. This deed, however, did not confer any powers on the trustees to sell the properties.
Further, it noted that the purchaser had claimed that he had converted the immovable properties into residential plots and sold them to different individuals since permission was granted in 2011. The Court, however, declared the sale to be void and ordered repayment of the sale consideration of Rs. 55.5 lakh to him with interest.
The Bench further opined that a public auction should have been conducted for the sale, and observed, “In the case at hand, there is nothing on record to show that there are compelling reasons to depart from the mode of public auction so as to justify the sale in favour of the 8th respondent. There is no clear direction in the judgment to sell the property by public auction. The Court has also not fixed the reserve price as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial court suffers from infirmities and the matter requires fresh consideration.”
It thereafter remanded the case back to the Trial Court, to hear the case after impleading the Appellants and other beneficiaries as defendants to the suit. All the parties were directed to appear before the District Court on July 20.
Read the judgment here