2003 (10) TMI 639 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a person who has been in possession of the temple as an hereditary trustee can claim title to one of the items of the property belonging to the temple as his own? Whether the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments is conclusive as the question of title to the immovable properties belonging to the temple? Whether the right of a temple can be negatived on the mere strength of the assessment register standing in the name of the plaintiff/Respondent or any other person?

Issues Involved:

1. Title of the suit property.
2. Entitlement to receive rent.
3. Entitlement to possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Title of the Suit Property:

The appellant claimed ownership of the property, asserting that the property was inherited through an oral family partition. The property was initially recorded in the municipal register in the name of three individuals, including the appellant's father. After his father's death, the appellant's name was registered as the sole owner. The temple also claimed ownership, alleging that the property belonged to it and that the appellant was merely a trustee.

The Trial Court and the first appellate court relied on oral and documentary evidence, including ledger books and municipal records, concluding that the appellant was the owner. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, questioning the reliability of the documentary evidence, particularly the ledger books and photostat copies of documents.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its assessment. The ledger books, maintained by the appellant and his father, were deemed to be kept in the regular course of business and bore the seal of the income tax department. The entries in these books, corroborated by the appellant's testimony, were sufficient to establish ownership. The Supreme Court emphasized that objections to the mode of proof should be raised at the appropriate time, and since the documents were admitted without objection, they should be considered valid.

2. Entitlement to Receive Rent:

The appellant sought arrears of rent from the tenant, who initially paid rent to the appellant but later attorned to the temple. The tenant admitted to executing a rent agreement with the appellant but started paying rent to the temple from 1969 onwards.

The Trial Court and the first appellate court held that the appellant was entitled to receive rent, based on the ledger entries and the rent agreement. The High Court's exclusion of these documents was deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the tenant's attornment to the temple was invalid, as the temple was not the rightful owner. The appellant's consistent collection of rent and the entries in the municipal records supported his entitlement to receive rent.

3. Entitlement to Possession:

The appellant sought possession of the suit property, which was occupied by the tenant. The Trial Court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the appellant, granting him possession based on his established ownership and the invalid attornment by the tenant to the temple.

The High Court's reversal of this decision was based on its erroneous exclusion of key documentary evidence. The Supreme Court reinstated the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that the appellant's title to the property and entitlement to possession were sufficiently proven through the ledger books, rent agreement, and municipal records.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its assessment of the documentary evidence and in assuming the property belonged to the temple. The appellant successfully established ownership, entitlement to receive rent, and entitlement to possession. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree, granting the appellant possession and arrears of rent.

← Previous Next →