Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is a Temple under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charity Endowments https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  AS (MD) NO.71 OF 2020 Act, 1959 and belong to Devangar Chettiar Community. The second plaintiff is a Trustee and worshipper and he filed a Suit as a worshipper and also as a representative of all the worshippers. The Devanga Chettiar Community purchased the Suit schedule property on 17.04.1916 for the temple. The first defendant's father took the schedule property on lease by a registered deed dated 01.05.1967. The Trustee of the temple filed a Suit in O.S.No.572 of 1980 for evicting the tenant. The tenant filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.2 of 1981 under Section 9 of Madras City Tenants Protection Act [Tamil Nadu Act III of 1929]. The Suit was dismissed and the Original Petition was allowed. The appeals and cross appeals were finally decided and the Sale Deed dated 11.01.1996 was executed and registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, on 18.01.1996. The property was illegally conveyed and the Original Petition was closed marking full satisfaction on 23.01.1996. The then Trustees of the temple were negligent in conducting the Suit and the Original Petition. As a worshipper, the second plaintiff now fear that there could have been collusion between the Trustee and the defendants. Therefore, he challenges the Sale Deed dated 11.01.1996 registered as Document No.494/1996 as fraud, illegal, void and ignore the Sale Deed. He challenged the Sale Deed as void on three specific grounds:-

(ii) Whether the judgment in the previous proceedings in O.S.No.572 of 1980 and O.P.No.2 of 1981 are per incuriam ?

(iii) Whether the Sale Deed dated 11.01.1996 is void or not in view of Act II of 1996 ?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs waived their rights and whether the Suit is properly valued ?

18.The learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the Act came into force at the wee hour and whereas the Sale Deed was executed during office hours. Therefore, the sale deed executed after the Act came into force on 11.01.1996 is void and therefore, the Sale Deed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  AS (MD) NO.71 OF 2020 shall be recorded as void in the registers of Sub Registrar.

28.The core contention of the Appellants/ Plaintiffs is that the compromise between the parties to the C.T.O.P.2 of 1981 is illegal and void and therefore, the sale deed No.494 of 96 is void.

The Appellants / Plaintiffs did not ask for declaring the compromise as null and void in the suit. Without asking such relief, the Appellants / Plaintiffs are not entitled to get declaration of the sale deed No.494 of 1996 as void since the execution of the sale deed is only consequential to the compromise decree. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.