Partly allowed

Sree Meenakshisundareswararetc v. Ramu Ammal

Madras HC28 Apr 2025AS/271/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple's first appeal against dismissal of its possession suit over service inam land granted for Kannar Maanipam service. Holding the suit not maintainable without invoking Section 21(7), the court upheld dismissal in substance but allowed occupants to regularise title by paying prescribed rates to the temple.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree modified; occupants may regularise title on payment to the temple and obtain NOC; liberty to temple to resume unpaid/vacant lands under Section 21(7). No costs.

Sree Meenakshisundareswararetc Vs Ramu Ammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

A.S.271 of 2004

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

A.S.271 of 2004

¶7

Sree Meenakshisundareswarar etc., Devasthanam Madurai, Rep by its Executive Officer, South Adi Street, Madurai. ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Ramu Ammal

¶10

2.Meenakshi

¶11

3.Sethulakshmi

¶12

4.Sooryagandhi Ammal

¶13

5.E.M.Subramanian

¶14

6.Panneerselvan

¶15

7.Nithyanandam

¶16

8.C.Balakrishnan

¶17

9.E.Subramaniyan

¶18

10.S.Sundaram

¶19

11.Venkatachalapathy

¶20

12.Thangaraj

¶21

1/15

¶22

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

¶23

A.S.271 of 2004

13.Rangaraj

14.Ilangovan

15.Kuppusami

16.Kanakaraj

17.Mani

18.Sankarraj

19.Paulraj

20.Venkatasami

21.Sundarapandiyan

22.Ramamoorthy

23.Premraj

24.Balasubramanian

25.Alagarsami

26.N.Palaniappan

27.C.Ganesan

28.Sudalai (Died)

29.Kanakavel

30.Muthukrishnan

31.Murugan

32.Ramasami

33.Radhakrishnan

34.K.Pothi

35.Balasubramanian

36.Navaneethakrishnan

¶48

37.Radhakrishnan

¶49

2/15

¶50

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

¶51

A.S.271 of 2004

¶52

38.Solaimalai

¶53

39.Rajaram (Died)

¶54

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶55

Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶56

41.The Secretary to Government,

¶57

Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department,

¶58

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶59

Chennai – 9.

¶60

(R40 & R41 are suo motu impleaded vide order dated 23.04.2025 in A.S.No.271 of 2004 by GRSJ & MJRJ)

42.Subbulakshmi

43.Poovalaga Kumari

44.Durai Murugan

45.Thangamani

(R42 to R45 are brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased 28 th respondent vide common order dated 28.04.2025 in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9428, 9430, 9433, 9434, 9436 and 9437 of 2023 in A.S.No.271 of 2004 by GRSJ & MJRJ)

46.Poongothai

47.Babu

48.Senthilkumar

49.Srinivasan ... Respondents

¶70

(R46 to R49 are brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased 39^th respondent vide common order dated 28.04.2025 in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9428, 9430, 9433, 9434, 9436 and 9437 of 2023 in A.S.No.271 of 2004 by GRSJ & MJRJ)

¶71

3/15

¶72

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

¶73

A.S.271 of 2004

¶74

Prayer :

¶75

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1985 made in O.S.No.12

¶76

of 1984 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

¶77

For Appellant : Mr.S.Manohar For Respondent : Mr.K.Mukilan for R7 & R8. Mr.S.Madhavan for R15, R20, R23 & R30. Mr.R.Venkatesan for R18 Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan for R42 to R45. Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R40 & R41. No appearance for R4, 9, 10, 12, 22, 26, 28, 36 & 39.

¶78

JUDGMENT

¶79

( Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶80

This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1985 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai. The appellant / temple filed the said suit for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.1985. The appeal was not filed immediately. Though the suit was dismissed as early as on 30.04.1985, the appeal was numbered only in 2004. This appeal has been hanging fire for the last 21 years. During this period, a number of respondents have passed away. Steps were not taken to bring the legal 4/15

¶81

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

¶82

A.S.271 of 2004

¶83

heirs on record. On account of non-payment of batta and for failure to take steps, even this appeal came to be dismissed as against many of the respondents. This decree is not a severable decree. In normal circumstances, we would have straightaway dismissed the appeal itself. But then, we are not in a position to adopt such a harsh course of action. We cannot forget the fact that the appellant is a temple. It has been repeatedly held that when it comes protecting temple properties, the Court has to assume the Parens Patriae jurisdiction ( vide Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy, (1999) 3 SCC 115)

¶84

2.Coming to the merits of the matter, it is not in dispute that the suit property (S.No.156, Ponmani Village) is an inam property. During settlement proceedings, the Settlement Tahsildar (Minor Inams Unit – I), Madurai passed order vide S.T. 2 SR No.404/Md 9 Mdu 67 dated 01.08.1967 in respect of the suit schedule property. The Settlement Tahsildar had directed issuance of ryotwari patta in favour of three persons namely, C.Nithiyanandam, C.Balakrishnan (Both sons of Chinniah Asari) and Narayana Pattar, S/o.Chokkalingam Pattar. The said

¶85

5/15

¶86

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

¶87

A.S.271 of 2004

¶88

lands were given by way of inam for performing what is known as Kannar Maanipam (copper and brass) for Meenakshi Sundaraeswar Temple in Madurai. It was directed that the service holder are entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(ii) r/w. 8(5) subject to the provision of Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Even though it was a pure service grant, for reasons that are not quite clear, the trial Court chose to give a finding that it was a personal grant. The settlement patta was marked as Ex.A3.

¶89

3.The relevant provisions are extracted as follows:-

¶90

“ Section 8. Grand of ryotwari pattas.

¶91

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) in the [Tamil Nadu] [Substituted for the word 'Madras' by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws (Second Amendment) Order, 1969.] Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Tamil Nadu] [Substituted for the word 'Madras' by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws (Second Amendment) Order, 1969.] Act 22 of 1959), [and in the [Tamil Nadu] [Inserted by

¶92

6/15

¶93

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

¶94

A.S.271 of 2004

¶95

section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1964 (Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1964).] (Transferred Territory)] Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms Act, 1959 [Tamil Nadu] [Substituted for the word 'Madras' by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws (Second Amendment) Order, 1969.] Act 30 of 1959), the following provisions shall apply in the case of lands in an iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institutions or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity -

¶96

(i) .......

¶97

(ii) in the case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land.

¶98

Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, "land revenue" means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess. (3) .....

¶99

(4) .....

¶100

(5) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of ryotwari patta under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the provisions of section 21.

¶101

7/15

¶102

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

¶103

A.S.271 of 2004

¶104

Section 21: Service inams.

¶105

(1)The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of any minor inam which was held immediately before the appointed day by an individual (hereinafter referred to in this section as the service-holder) on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution.

¶106

(2)The service-holder shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be bound to continue to render the service after the appointed day.

¶107

(3) (i) Where a service-holder is entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 8 in respect of any land, he shall have the option -

¶108

(a)either to pay to the religious institution the amount specified in subsection (4) and on such payment the land shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7), be discharged from the condition of the service; or

¶109

(b)to hold the land and continue to render service subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2), (6) and (7).

¶110

(ii)The option referred to in clause (i) shall be twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule and the land revenue due on such land.

¶111

(5)Where the service-holder has exercised his option to pay the amount specified in sub-section (4), the tasdik allowance referred to in sub-section (6) in respect of the period subsequent to the date of the exercise of such option shall be the

¶112

8/15

¶113

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

¶114

A.S.271 of 2004

¶115

absolute property of the institution and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the performance of the service.

¶116

(6) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service, the institution shall pay to the service-holder the tasdik allowance paid by the Government under section 20.

¶117

(b)If the service-holder fails to render the service, the prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and after such notice to the service-holder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify such failure in such manner as may be prescribed. He shall then declare that the tasdik allowance payable to the institution in respect of the period subsequent to the failure shall be the absolute property of the institution and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of the service.

¶118

(7) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service, he shall be entitled to occupy permanently the lands in respect of which he is entitled to a patta under section 8, subject however, to the payment of the assessment fixed [under section 16 or under section 16-A, as the case may be] [Substituted for the expression 'under section 16' by section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1964 (Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1964).], in respect of such lands.

¶119

(b)If the service-holder fails to render the service, the prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and after such notice to the service-holder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify

¶120

9/15

¶121

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

¶122

A.S.271 of 2004

¶123

such failure in such manner as may be prescribed. He shall then declare that the service-holder's right to occupy permanently the land under clause (a) shall cease and determine, and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of the service and shall be entitled to hold the land as its absolute property subject, however, to the payment of the assessment fixed therefor [under section 16 or under section 16-A, as the case may be] [Substituted for the expression 'under section 16' by section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1964 (Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1964).]. Explanation I. - For the purposes of this section, -

¶124

(i)service-holder includes his heirs;

¶125

(ii)non-performance of the service due to illness or other temporary disability shall not be deemed to be failure to render service, provided that the service-holder makes alternative arrangements for rendering the service during the period of such illness or of other temporary disability.

¶126

Explanation II. - For the purposes of sub-section (4), "land revenue" means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess.”

¶127

4.The aforesaid provisions have been considered in many a

¶128

decisions and it has been consistently held that such lands are not

¶129

10/15

¶130

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

¶131

A.S.271 of 2004

¶132

alienable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.02.2022 in

¶133

Sankaranarayana Swamy Devasthanam .vs. P.S.Chandrasekara Raja

¶134

(Civil Appeal No.2671 of 2012) held as follows:

¶135

“17.Once it is clear that ..it was a grant burdened with the service and that there was a right of resumption under Section 21(7) of the Act, the respondent cannot resist the reliefs sought by the temple. In other words, the sale deeds in favour of the respondent or his predecessors-in-title cannot take away the statutory right of the appellant-temple to resume the land. An institution which has the right of resumption, has a right to seek a declaration that the sale is null and void. There is no point in allowing title to remain with some one and possession with another.”

¶136

The patta holder is entitled to retain the property so long as he renders service. If there is a default in rendering service, the only course of action open to the institution is to move the prescribed authority under Section 21(7) for resumption of lands. In this case, without approaching the prescribed authority, the temple chose to file a suit. It was obviously not maintainable. Therefore, dismissal of the suit has to be necessarily upheld.

¶137

11/15

¶138

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

¶139

A.S.271 of 2004

¶140

5.We grant liberty to the appellant / temple to take recourse to the procedure laid down in Section 21(7) of Tamil Nadu Act No.30/1963. In normal circumstances, we would have dismissed the appeal with the aforesaid liberty. Considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, we intend to travel an extra mile. It is not in dispute that value of the property as on date is Rs.1,100/- per square feet. The learned standing counsel for the temple draws our attention to the letter bearing Na.Ka.No.190/2025 issued in the month of April, 2025 given by the jurisdictional Sub Registrar. The persons in occupation of the land can take a title deed in their name absolutely on payment of the aforesaid sum computed at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per square feet directly to the temple account, and obtain NOC from the temple also. Since in this appeal, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department

¶141

as well as the government have been made as respondents, as and when NOC is issued by the appellant / temple, any land transaction shall be registered. The learned counsel for some of the respondents states that many of the occupants may not in a position to pay the said amount right away. In such cases, they shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent

¶142

12/15

¶143

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

¶144

A.S.271 of 2004

¶145

within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order so

¶146

that they can continue to be in occupation of their lands. As and when they sell the land in question occupied by them, they have to pay at the rate mentioned above after making due deduction. Of course, interest also will start running from today ie., 28.04.2025 onwards at the rate of 6% per annum. If the entire amount is remitted to the temple account by the occupants, the temple will immediately issue NOC based on which, they can enter into transactions later. The registering department will not decline to register the document on the ground that the value of lands have been shown as “zero” value. If there is failure on part of the occupants to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within the period mentioned above, the temple management would be liberty to move the prescribed authority for resumption of lands occupied by them. We also grant liberty to the appellant / temple to resume the lands that are vacant and which have not changed hands from the hands of the original service holder.

¶147

13/15

¶148

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

¶149

A.S.271 of 2004

¶150

6.The impugned judgment and decree are modified and the first

¶151

appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶152

miscellaneous petition is closed.