IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

HIGH COURT CITATIONS
CIVIL CASES
2011 -2- L.W. 1
A.N. Kumar
vs
Arulmighu Arunachaleswara Devasthanam Thiruvannamalai and Ors
And
A.N. Kumar
vs
Arulmighu Arunachaleswara Devasthanam Thiruvannamalai
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (1959), Chapter VII/Sections 78,79,
Ejectment suit by temple (Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasathanam Thiruvannamalai) against lessess, whether
maintainable; other Suit by lessee was filed for Specific Performance of clause in the lease to exercise option for
renewal for further period of 50 years, such clause whether valid, Sections 34, 118,
C.P.C., Section 9/Civil court’s jurisdiction, bar as to, Ejectment suit by temple, whether barred,
General Clauses Act (1897), Sections 6,
Specific Performance,
Specific Relief Act (1963), Section 22/Discretionary relief.
Question in these appeals is, whether for ejectment suit filed by the temple, jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is expressly barred.
There is no express bar under Sections 78 and 79 for an authority acting on behalf of the temple to
approach the Civil Court – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under second provisio to Section 79 is the bar in respect
of suits instituted only by a lessee, licensee, or mortgagee of the religious institution or endowment.
When the encroacher has been given a right to approach the Civil Court after an order has been passed
by the Deputy Commissioner against him, there cannot be a bar for the temple to file a suit – Suit filed on behalf of
the temple is very much maintainable.
As per clause (7) of Ex.A.1, the lessee shall not be entitled to assign, transfer, sell all or any portion of
leasehold rights except with the previous consent in writing of the lessors.
Lessee had conveyed the properties without getting the previous consent of the lessor – When there is
breach of covenant by the lessee, the lessee forfeited the right to exercise the option for renewal of the lease.
Clause containing option to renewal of lease for fifty years is inconsistent with the provisions of
H.R.&C.E.Act.
Passing decree for specific performance directing the Temple Authorities to renew the lease for a
further period of fifty years would injuriously affect the interest of the temple.
12