Allowed

K.Ashok Chakravarthy, v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC19 Jan 2021WP/21322/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment clubbed a Writ Petition challenging a notice for eviction and a Second Appeal against a Civil Court decree regarding temple property possession. The court held that the Second Appeal was allowed because the original suit was improperly instituted against a deceased defendant. In the Writ Petition, the eviction notice was dismissed with directions to investigate the validity of the te

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal allowed; Writ Petition dismissed; notice to file reply within 4 weeks; temple to verify documentation and initiate eviction/rent proceedings within 6 weeks; interim stay vacated.

K.Ashok Chakravarthy, Vs The Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition No.21322 of 2017 & WMP.No.22263 of 2017 and SA.No.796 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2014

¶6

WP.No.21322 of 2017

¶7

K.Ashok Chakravarthy … Petitioner
Vs
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Madras 34.
2.The Executive Officer,
A/m Gangadeeswarar Koil, Purasawalkkam,
Chennai 84. … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of
Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1st
respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1960/ 2017/A3 dated
16.03.2017 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and
without jurisdiction.
AND
SA.No.796 of 2014
K.Shyamalaba (deceased)
1.Ashok Chakravarthy
2.K.Vikram Chakranoth
3.K.Ramarao
4.K.Lakshmana Rao … Appellants/Respondents 4,5, 7&8
Vs

¶8

1.Arulmighu Gangadeeswarar Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Sri.M.Ramachandran Temple Premises, Purasawalkam, Chennai.

¶9

...1^st Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Kumar

¶11

3.Sathyendrakumar

¶12

4.K.Shyam Sundar Rao

¶13

5.K.Krishna Rao … Respondents/Respondents 2,3,6 & 9

¶14

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree in A.S.34/2010, on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 28.04.2014, in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.3118/1988, on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 01.12.2008.

¶15

(In Writ Petition)
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.M.Karthikeyan (for R1)
Special Government Pleader
Mr.A.K.Sriram (for R2)
for M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates
(In Second Appeal)
For Appellants :Mr. V.Raghavachari
For Respondents: Mr.A.K.Sriram (for R1)
R2 – Died
R3 – No Appearance
R4 & R5 – Unclaimed
COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is one Mr.Ashok Chakravarthy, son of late Appa Rao who passed away in 1991. The Second Appeal and Writ Petition have been clubbed together in view of the identity facts in both matters. The second appeal has been filed by Ashok Chakravarthy, petitioner in the writ petition, challenging the judgment of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 28.04.2014, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3118 of 1988, on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai dated 01.12.2008.

¶17

The suit had been filed by the Arulmighu Gangadeeswarar Temple (Temple) seeking possession of the property at Door No.94, Gangadeeswarar Koil, Purasawalkkam, Chennai-600 084 measuring about 3 ground 2105 sq. Ft (property/property in question). As far as the second appeal is concerned, it is an admitted position that though notice for possession had been issued by the temple to Appa Rao, the suit has been instituted arraying K.Shyamalaba (wife of Appa Rao) as the sole defendant on the erroneous assumption that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appa Rao was no more. No serious objection is put forth by the

¶18

learned counsel for the respondents to the position that in such circumstances, the suit has not been properly instituted and is not maintainable. The appellant is thus liable to succeed and the second appeal is allowed.

¶19

I now advert to Writ Petition No.21322 of 2017, Appa Rao is said to have entered into an arrangement with the temple in 1956 for lease of the property in question. No document has been placed either before the Civil Court or before me to evidence this arrangement. Be that as it may, rentals are being collected by the temple till date, even after the demise of Appa Rao.

¶20

At the outset, I may state that this arrangement is contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (in short ‘Act’) which stipulates a veracity of parameters to be followed in regard to alienation of immovable property by way of exchange, sale, mortgage or lease including that the arrangement shall not exceed a period of five years.

¶21

5.The petitioner would claim that a superstructure has been constructed on the property by Appa Rao. There is absolutely no evidence in regard to this, as one is unaware of whether the superstructure was in existence even at the time when the arrangement commenced as between the parties. The impugned communication in the writ petition is a notice for eviction in terms of Section 78(2) calling upon the petitioner to furnish a response as to why he may not be evicted from the premises and proceedings have come to a halt on 20.08.2014 when an order of interim protection was obtained by the petitioner from this Court.

¶22

The petitioner may file a reply within a period of four (4) weeks from today to the impugned show cause notice. In deciding the issue, the temple shall take note of documentation, if any, that exists as between the parties and whether such documentation is strictly in line with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Assuming that no such documentation exists, proceedings for eviction shall be initiated in line with Section 78 and proceedings for the fair rent will be initiated and pursued separately. Let this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of reply to the show cause notice.

¶23

The writ petition is dismissed and the Second Appeal is allowed. The order of interim stay granted on 20.08.2014 is vacated forthwith. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

vs/ska

¶30

¶31

1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Madras 34.
2.The Executive Officer,
A/m Gangadeeswarar Koil, Purasawalkkam,
Chennai 84.
3.The Vth Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
4.The Vith Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai.
+4cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate SR.2493, 2494
+2cc to Mr.A.S.Kailasan&Associates, Advocate SR.2630, 2631
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.3432
Writ Petition No.21322 of 2017 &
WMP.No.22263 of 2017 and
SA.No.796 of 2014 &
MP.No.1 of 2014
BS(CO)
CB(12/03/2021)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Ashok Chakravarthy, v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ashok Chakravarthy, v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Gopalakrishnan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Mr.Nataraj, Vs the Secretary to Government of

M/s.Sri Shanmuga Blue Metals Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.B.M.Patel and Company Vs The State Tax Officer

Akshaya Building Solution Vs The Commissioner

M/s.L and T.Hydrocarbon Enginnering Ltd. Vs Union of India Department of commerce