Madras High Court: Merely Because People Safeguarding Temples Have Misappropriated Them Via False Claims, It Can’t Serve As Ready Excuse For Judges Not To Apply Plain Letter Of Law

The Madras High Court observed that merely because people entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the temple properties have misappropriated such properties via false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession, it cannot serve as a ready excuse for Judges not to apply the plain letter of law.

The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition filed by the Canara Bank praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment to issue NOC to register the sale certificate pertaining to a property.

A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh remarked, “… merely because in “many instances, people entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the temple properties have misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession,” it cannot serve as a ready excuse for Judges not to apply the plain letter of law when the facts of concrete instances before them are clear and plain. On facts, this case cannot be thrown out citing the perception of “many instances” of people misappropriating funds and claiming false ownership etc.”

The Bench referred to Bible at Luke 12:15 which says “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” It also referred to Mahabharata saying that we know that Duryodhana's greed was a major factor, which led to the battle and subsequent massacre that followed, therefore, the omnipresence of greedy people can scarcely serve as an excuse for the Court to give effect to the plain words of the law.

“After all, it is the law that binds and not the perception of judges”, it added.

Advocate M.L. Ganesh appeared for the Petitioner while Additional Government Pleader (AGP) S. Ravichandran appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

The primary issue that arose for consideration in this case was as to whether the Order under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act passed by the Small Causes Court, Chennai pursuant to which the Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Respondent-person by the then Hereditary Trustee representing the temple, should be treated as null and void in view of a lack of prior approval or permission from the Commissioner, HR & CE Department under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act.

The other important issue to be considered was as to whether the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Super Good Films Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner, HR & CE Department (W.P.No.7220 of 2022) is a binding precedent and as to whether the Writ Petition must be dealt with in line with this Judgment.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “At this juncture, a question may arise as to whether a sale under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act is subject to Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, which prohibits the sale of lands of religious and charitable endowments without the prior sanction of the Commissioner.”

The Court said that all pending proceedings under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act concerning tenancies in the lands owned by religious institutions shall abate on and from January 11, 1996 i.e., the date, on which, the Tamil Nadu Act of 1996 came into force.

“Any proceeding pending as on 11.1.1996, where an order under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act has not been executed by executing a sale deed and/or handing over possession, would also stand abated and any rights accrued to the tenant until that point would cease to be enforceable”, it added.

The Court also observed that any decree passed under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act on or after the said date concerning a tenancy in lands owned by the religious institutions would resultantly be a nullity in law.

“All concluded proceedings ie., where sale deeds have been executed in favour of the tenants, etc., these decrees and the deeds executed thereunder are saved by the Proviso to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996. This implies that such orders/decrees and sale deeds executed in favour of tenants prior to 11.1.1996 i.e., prior to the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996 remain legal and valid”, it said.

The Court was of the view that the Division Bench has not taken note of any of the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court and more importantly, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996

“The attempt to invoke a rule of interpretation, which goes by the name of generalia specialibus non derogant, is unfortunately misconceived for the reason that such a rule can apply only when the provisions of a special law clash with those of a general law. In such a situation, the provisions of the general law must yield to those of the special law”, it said.

The Court remarked that the legislature cannot be presumed to act mistakenly or ignorantly by enacting the futile laws.

“In the face of a clear statutory provision, what then is the effect of the declaration made by the Division Bench? The answer is simple: nothing. It is and remains as ineffectual as the command given by King Canute, who ordered the seas to recede from his feet”, it observed.

The Court said that having read Section 111 of the HR & CE Act, it is left puzzled. It added that the tenant cannot challenge the lease for the simple reason that the protection under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act was available only if the tenant admitted the tenancy and not otherwise.

“Therefore, to say that Section 111 of the HR & CE Act bars a challenge to the lease and consequently a petition under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act appears to make no apparent sense at all, is, in fact, a contradiction in terms”, it held.

Moreover, the Court remarked that the presence (or omnipresence) of greedy men (and women) swarming the world is not a new phenomenon and has always existed from time immemorial.

“… the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to collaterally challenge the correctness of the sale and that too in a writ petition filed by the petitioner bank. This is so especially when the temple itself had filed appeals in A.S.Nos.14 to 19 of 1977 challenging the order under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act and lost. For these reasons, this Court finds that the course adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Super Good Films Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.R.B.Choudhary is not capable of emulation when the legal position is otherwise”, it held.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the question of obtaining a no objection certificate from the temple does not arise at all.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the Petitioner-bank to present the sale certificate for registration.

Cause Title- Canara Bank v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:926)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate M.L. Ganesh

Respondents: AGPs S. Ravichandran, B. Vijay, and Advocate P. Jesus Moris Ravi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment