R BANUMATHY Vs. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the inaction of the first respondent in registering the sale deed dated 23.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner in Doc. No. P-86/Book-I/2010, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, praying for a direction in the nature of writ, to the first respondent to register the said sale deed. According to the petitioner, on 23.12.2010, he purchased a superstructure from one P.H. Jamal Mohideen measuring 925 sq.ft. situated at old Door No. 21 New Door No. 37, Kachaleeswarar Garden Street, Muthialpet, Chennai-1 comprised in old Survey No. 1872, R.S. No. 2696 of Muthialpet. The said superstructure originally belonged to P. Balu Pillai and his wife Smt. Dhanakottiammal and they conveyed the same in favour of one K.N. Vadivelu Naicker under a sale deed dated 12.06.1975 registered in Doc. No. 4336/1975 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Chennai-North. The said K.N. Vadivelu Naicker mortgaged the said property in favour of i. Mohan, ii. Ganesan and iii. Lawrence Arockiaraj under a mortgage deed dated 5.2.1997 and he discharged the same on 10.11.1999 and thereafter, he conveyed the same in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, namely, P.H. Jamal Mohideen under a sale deed dated 14.12.2000, who in turn sold the same in favour of the petitioner. After purchasing the above said property, the petitioner submitted the sale deed dated 23.12.2010 to the first respondent for the purpose of registering the same and it was taken on file as Doc. P-86/Book-I/2010. Since the first respondent has not taken any action in registering the said document, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent/temple, wherein, it has been stated that the second respondent/Arulmigu Katchaleeswarar Devasthanam is the owner of the land comprised in 1872, R.S. No. 2696 of Katchaleeswrar Garden Street in C.C. No. 1277 and it was let out to several tenants in small portions. The second respondent/temple is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The land measuring about 850 sq.ft. on which, the superstructure made and sought for registration by the petitioner, was let out to one K.N. Vadivel on a month rent of Rs. 70/-, who assigned the leasehold right to one P.H. Jamal Mohideen on 14.12.2000 without permission from the second respondent and HR & CE Department. Since the said P.H. Jamal Mohideen was in unauthorised occupation of the temple land, proceedings under Section 78(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (in short, HR & CE Act) were initiated for recovery of possession from him and the same were pending. As per Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, any immovable property belonging to the temple cannot be alienated without necessary sanction from the Commissioner, HR & CE Department and if alienated, it would be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner. The erstwhile lease holder, K.N. Vadivel had not obtained any permission from the Commissioner HR & CE Department for assigning the leasehold right in favour P.H. Jamal Mohideen or to any third party. While that be so, the said Jamal Mohideen, without any right, has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the superstructure and assigning the leasehold right of the land and the petitioner in turn submitted the said sale deed before the first respondent for registration. The first respondent has sent a communication dated 27.12.2010 to the HR & CE Department calling for any objection for the registering the document. On receipt of the said communication, the Commissioner sent proceedings, dated 7.1.2011 to the first respondent, objecting to the registration of the sale deed.

(3.) It has been further stated in the counter that already a suit in O.S. No. 1171 of 2011 was filed by the second respondent against the original leaseholder, vendor of the petitioner and against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating or assigning the leasehold right and executing any document in respect of the second respondent/temple property under the guise of sale of superstructure. The said suit is pending for disposal. But the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the fact of pendency of the suit against her. The temple land or leasehold rights cannot be transferred without permission from the HR & CE Department and even if the document is registered, the petitioner cannot claim any over the land or the leasehold right in his name. With these averments, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the suit.