Allowed

The Executive Officer v. S. Palanisamy

Madras HC27 Mar 2024WA(MD)/1120/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Appeal allowed, setting aside the earlier Writ Court order that directed registration of sale deeds. The High Court upheld the rejection of documents by the Sub-Registrar, relying on the temple's established title via a decreed suit. The temple successfully challenged the order asserting priority over the private respondents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.09.2016 in W.P.(MD)No.4452 of 2008 set aside; writ appeal allowed; consequent connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Executive Officer Vs S. Palanisamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶8

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶9

and

¶10

C.M.P.(MD)No.7721 of 2017

¶11

The Executive Officer,

¶12

Arulmigu Kalyana Pasupatheeswara Swamy Temple,

¶13

Karur. ...Appellant

¶14

/Vs./

¶15

1.S.Palanisamy

¶16

2.Poonkodi

¶17

3.Amutha

¶18

4.Minor Baby

¶19

5.Minor Nagularasan

¶20

Represented by their power of attorney,

¶21

S.Subramanian

¶22

6.The Sub Registrar of Registration,

¶23

Karur West, Karur – 639 001. ...Respondents

¶24

1/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶27

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to

¶28

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to allow the writ appeal and to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4452 of 2008 dated 14.09.2016.

¶29

For Appellant : Mr. G.Sridharan For Respondents : Mr. A.K.Manikkam (R6) Special Government Pleader

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

(Judgment of the Court was made by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.)

¶32

The Temple filed this writ appeal challenging the order passed by this Court dated 14.09.2016 in WP(MD)No.4452 of 2008, which was filed by the writ petitioners / private respondents challenging the order of the first respondent / sixth respondent, wherein it is stated that the subject property belongs to the temple with a consequential direction to the first respondent / sixth respondent to register the sale deeds belonging to the writ petitioners / private respondents.

¶33

2/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶36

The case of the writ petitioners is that the writ petitioners were represented through power agent and the said power was registered on 29.01.2008 and the subject property is a common property of the writ petitioners. When the writ petitioners tried to sell the subject property, a sale deed was also executed. When the same was presented, it has been rejected mentioning the letter sent by the HR&CE Department wherein it was held that the lands vested in the religious institutions should not be registered. The writ petitioners gave a representation to the respondents, for which the impugned order in the writ petition came to be passed. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed, which was allowed directing the first respondent / sixth respondent, to register the writ petitioners' / private respondents' documents. Challenging the same, the Temple has filed this writ appeal.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant temple

¶38

submits that a suit in O.S.No.300 of 2002 has been filed by the appellant temple and others seeking for declaration that the appellant temple is the absolute owner of the suit property and for delivery of possession before

¶39

3/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶42

the District Munsif Court, Karur, which was decreed exparte in favour of the appellant temple. One of the private respondents had filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree with a delay, which was also dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, CRP(MD)No.1420 of 2010 was filed, which was also dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2019. Suppressing all these facts, the writ petitioners attempted to make execution of the documents before the first respondent / sixth respondent and the same was rejected.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

¶44

the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the sixth respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶45

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the temple authority

¶46

has filed a suit and got it decreed. The revenue records also stand in the name of the temple, in view of the declaration of title in the suit as well as the revenue records. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent / sixth respondent by rejecting the documents

¶47

4/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶50

submitted by the writ petitioners / private respondents. The impugned order passed by the first respondent / sixth respondent is in accordance with law and the writ petitioners / private respondents have no right to claim any right over the subject property. The order of the writ Court dated 14.09.2016 passed in WP(MD)No.4452 of 2008 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

(V.B.S.J.) & (K.K.R.K.J.) 27.03.2024

¶52

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes sm

¶53

5/6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶56

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. and K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶57

¶58

TO:-

¶59

1.The Sub Registrar of Registration, Karur West, Karur – 639 001.

¶60

Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1120 of 2017

¶61

Dated: 27.03.2024

¶62

6/6

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Executive Officer v. S. Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Officer v. S. Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs B.Lavanya

The Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/s.Jitendra N Kamdar

The Branch Manager, Vs Deepadevi

M.Basiriya Beevi, Vs S.Tamilarasi

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Ramalakshmi

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Sahana Traders