Case Note & Summary
The appellant, A. Mohammed Basheer, filed a writ appeal against the order of a learned single Judge dated 07.09.2022 in W.P.No.11145 of 2022, which dismissed his writ petition challenging eviction proceedings initiated by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department. The property in question, Town Survey No.311, Hajiyar Street, Kumbakonam, measuring 602 sq.ft, belongs to Arulmighu Illuppaiyadi Pillayar Temple. One Varadarajulu Naidu was a tenant of the temple but claimed title, leading to litigation culminating in Second Appeal No.385 of 1989, wherein the High Court held that the property belongs to the temple. Subsequently, the appellant purchased the property from Varadarajulu Naidu and was in possession. The HR&CE Department initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (TN HR&CE Act), and an eviction order was passed on 29.03.2019. The appellant filed a revision under Section 21 of the Act before the Commissioner, who rejected it on 09.03.2022. The appellant then filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, who directed the authorities to complete eviction and secure vacant possession within four weeks. In the writ appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the learned single Judge had observed that a fresh application for lease could be made, and that the appellant had paid arrears of rent pursuant to an interim order. The Division Bench, however, found no merit in the appeal. It held that the title of the temple was already decided in the earlier second appeal, and the appellant, having purchased from a tenant whose title claim was negatived, cannot claim better title. The eviction proceedings under Section 78 were valid, and the concurrent findings of the authorities and the writ court did not warrant interference. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the authorities were directed to proceed with eviction and recover possession, with the appellant given four weeks to vacate voluntarily.
Headnote
A) Hindu Religious Endowments - Eviction of Encroacher - Section 78 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Eviction of Purchaser from Tenant - The appellant purchased temple property from a tenant whose title claim was already negatived by the High Court in S.A.No.385 of 1989. The HR&CE Department initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78, and the eviction order was upheld by the Commissioner in revision under Section 21. The writ court dismissed the petition, and the Division Bench affirmed, holding that the appellant cannot claim better title than the tenant and that the eviction proceedings were valid. (Paras 2-6) B) Hindu Religious Endowments - Revision under Section 21 - Maintainability - Section 21 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - The revision petition under Section 21 against the eviction order under Section 78 is maintainable. The Commissioner, after adjudication, rejected the revision, and the High Court found no error in the concurrent findings. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Title Decided in Earlier Suit - The title of the temple over the property was conclusively decided in S.A.No.385 of 1989. The appellant, being a purchaser pendente lite or from a tenant, is bound by the decree and cannot re-agitate the title. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction order passed under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, against the appellant who purchased the property from a tenant is sustainable, and whether the writ court ought to have interfered with the concurrent findings of the authorities.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the temple property within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents are directed to evict the appellant and recover possession of the property in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Eviction under Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act
- 1959
- does not require determination of title
- title already decided in earlier civil suit
- purchaser from tenant cannot claim better title
- revision under Section 21 of TN HR&CE Act
- is maintainable against eviction order
- writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence in summary proceedings.
