Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
Kesava Pillay vs Kannusamy Pillay And Ors. on 11 August, 1904
Equivalent citations: (1905) 15 MLJ 30


1. In our opinion item No 6 of the schedule with reference to which registration of the whole document has been refused, purports only to transfer the right of management of the temple therein mentioned and the reference to the endowments of the temple is incidental to the right purporting to be transferred We are not concerned with the question of the validity of this part of the transaction. The question is whether it is a transfer “relating to immoveable property” and if so, whether the description is “sufficient to identify the property”. There can be no doubt that the right of a manager of a Hindu temple, even though such management involves the holding of improvable property forming part of the endowments of the temple, is not immoveable property within the meaning of the Registration Act. The incident of reference in the instrument, to the endowments stated above, cannot alter the character of the transfer. In this view no question as to the sufficiency of the description arises. Even assuming it were otherwise, the description must be held to be quite sufficient.

2. In so far as the institution is concerned, its name and situation are given; and no doubt as to the identity thereof can possibly exist. As to the endowments also the same is the case; for the reference to 1 acre and 70 cents with the registry standing in the name of the temple coupled also with the reference to trees on Puramboke lands as registered in the name of the temple leave no doubt on the matter, it being undisputed that the Temple has no endowments of this sort elsewhere. In any view the refusal to register the document as to the 27 acres and 75 cents was wrong inasmuch as with reference to that property there was no objection on the score of insufficient description. See Amirdam v. Muthukumara Chetty 13 M.L.J.R., 303.

3. We must, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the orders refusing registration and direct the Registrar to accept the instrument and cause the same to be registered.

4. The respondent will pay the appellant’s costs throughout.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.162 seconds.