JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order of the 3rd respondent dated 02.03.2022 in R.C.No.15/2022 and quash the same, in so far as it relates to Survey No.217 and its sub divisions and direct the 4th respondent to receive the sale deeds presented by the petitioner for registration, if it is otherwise in order.) The Writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the third respondent. 2. The order impugned passed by the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is an objection raised under Section 22A of the Registration Act and communicated to the Sub-Registrar concerned. Based on the objection raised by the third respondent, the registering authority is empowered to refuse any registration in view of Section 22A of the Registration Act. 3. The petitioner states that they are the absolute owners of the property morefully described in the present Writ Petition. They have purchased the property by paying the sale consideration. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that they are no way connected with the endowment created through the will by the executor, who is the original owner of the property. The existence of the will and the probate done thereafter are not in dispute between the parties. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in O.S.Appeal No.139 of 1994, the Hon''ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, in its judgement and decree dated 02.12.1997, decreed that the reversioners are entitled to enjoy possession and declared that the Schedule A mentioned properties therein are the absolute properties of the said reversioners. The appellants therein are the reversioners and the remaining properties were given to the executor Mr.T.S.Rangachari, by recording the joint memo of compromise filed by both the parties therein. 5. Thus, it is clear that the Original Side Appeal was decided based on the joint compromise memo filed between the parties and there was no adjudication of issues on merits in the said OSA. 5. Thus, it is clear that the Original Side Appeal was decided based on the joint compromise memo filed between the parties and there was no adjudication of issues on merits in the said OSA. Even as per the joint memo of compromise filed between the parties, in paragraph 7, it is unambiguously stated "that all the properties detailed in B Schedule shall exclusively belong to and be under the sole possession, enjoyment and management of the respondent Mr.T.S.Rangachari and shall be entitled to administer them as he pleases in charitable purposes." Therefore, it is clear that an exclusive right was conferred to hold and enjoy the property. While so, the Court itself has stated that the respondent T.S.Rangachari shall be entitled to administer them as be pleases the charitable purposes. Thus, the order passed in the OSA states that the parties may hold the property exclusively but the charitable purposes are also to be carried on as per the wishes of the executor of the will. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that the petitioners have been given A Scheduled property, which is no way connected with the charitable purposes. 7. The properties cannot be segregated because the endowment was created jointly with reference to all the properties through the will dated 16.11.1971. Pertinently, the portion of the will reads as under:- "The aforesaid T.S.Rangachariar shall be the executor, and after my life-time, shall take absolutely all my properties in the capacity as executor, and carry out the Charities stated by me therein, suitably out of the nett income derived from them. Out of the income got from the remaining properties (i.e.,) from those that remain after excluding the properties to be enjoyed personally by the respective individuals out of the properties, got by me after the death of my mother late Ethirajammal and being enjoyed by me now and described in the Schedules D, E, F, G hereunder, the aforesaid T.S.Rangachariar, as executor, shall according to his suitability, carry out the Charities, detailed schedule-wise hereunder out of nett income, after meeting the expenses for Government Kist, salary to employees etc." 8. The schedules mentioned in the will for charitable purposes also indicates the nature of endowments to be performed. The schedules mentioned in the will for charitable purposes also indicates the nature of endowments to be performed. By segregating the properties in favour of the writ petitioner and in favour of T.S.Rangachari, they cannot get away with the endowment created with the executor of the will. They are bound to perform the endowment jointly or proportionately as the case may be, in order to honour the wishes of the executor, who created an endowment in favour of the temple. But, at no circumstance, the endowment can be diluted nor be done away with, so as to defeat the endowment created by the executor of the will. The properties were bequeathed by creating an endowment along with the will and therefore, the temple has not claimed any right over the property, but the temple has to ensure that the endowments created are performed as per the wishes of the executor. The endowment was created to protect further alienation of the properties and to ensure that the endowment has been performed as stated in the will. 9. In this context, the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent is relevant, which reads as under:- "5..... b) In the said Will the Urchavam etc to be performed in various temples from the income derived from the concerned property were briefed in the schedule A, B, D and E. The details of charities to be done from the properties are as follows: S.No. Schedule Charity to be done Charity attached to temple 1. A Navarathiri and Panchaparva Urchavam on every Friday Amirthavalli Thayar in Pachaivarnapermal Devasthanam, Agaramel Village Sankaranthi day Thirukalyanam Patchaivarnaperumal and Andal in Patchaivarnaperumal Temple in Agaramel Village Nithiyapadi Pooja Adhikesavaperumal at Shri Ashtajuja Perumal Temple at Chinna Kancheepuram 2. B Utsavam Koorathalwar Temple, Sriperumbudur Utsavam in every Thai month of Tamil Calendar Matha Anusthana Utsavam Shri Manavala Maamunigal Temple at Sriperumbudur 3. D Nithiyapadi Arulmigu Adhikesava Perumal in Astapujamsanathi, Chinna Kanchipuram Temple 4. E Satru Murai Urchavam, Pavithra Urchavam Koorathalwar Temple, Sriperumbudur/Basyakaraswamy Temple c) The said Testator appointed one T.S.Rengachari to execute the Will after her death. She died on 11.01.1981. After her death the said Rengachari carried out the wishes of the Testator as an Executor to some extent as per the Will. During the life time of T.S.Rangachri he himself sold 1 acre 51 cents in S.No.25/2 in Agaramel Village to one Intelligent Neuro System Private Limited. She died on 11.01.1981. After her death the said Rengachari carried out the wishes of the Testator as an Executor to some extent as per the Will. During the life time of T.S.Rangachri he himself sold 1 acre 51 cents in S.No.25/2 in Agaramel Village to one Intelligent Neuro System Private Limited. Subsequently the said Intelligent Neuro System had in turn sold the same to this petitioner. It is against the Will of the Testators. 7. It is also submitted that, a) From the above records and facts it was found that the properties belong to the trust were alienated by the above said persons without obtaining any prior permission from the HR&CE Department or from the Court. b) In the matter of the properties belong to the above trust one Original Suit NO.6/2016 is filed by one Vengatachari and Muralitharan as plaintiffs by impleading P.S.Krishnan and 21 others as defendants before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. The prayer of the plaintiffs in the above suit is to issue an order that the sale deed created by late T.S.Rengachari and the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are null and void as the properties are belong to the above trust. The copy of the plaint in O.S.No.6/2016 is submitted herewith in the typed set of papers. c) A report was also sent by this respondent to the Assistant Commissioner, Kanchipuram on 06.05.2022 with a request to bring the said charity under the control of the Department and to appoint a fit person so as to protect the property belong to the trust and for conducting Utsavam as per the wishes of the Testators. d) Follow up action will be taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Kanchipuram in his proceedings R.C.No.1832/2022/A2 dated 15.03.2023 appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Ulagalantha Perumal Department to retrieve the property belong to the said trust by following due process of law and as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 22 of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)." 10. Section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (HR&CE Act) states that, "religious charity" means a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or temple or not. Section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (HR&CE Act) states that, "religious charity" means a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or temple or not. Section 6(17) states that, "religious endowment" or "endowment" means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof; but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution. Section 6(19) states that, "specific endowment" means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to Clause (17). 11. In the context of the provisions of the HR&CE Act, now let us consider the scope of Section 22A of the Registration Act, which is relevant as far as the present Writ Petition is concerned. Section 22A(1)(ii) states that "belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution to which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable". Therefore, the registering authority is empowered to refuse registration of documents if the property is belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any religious institutions. In the present case, the Will dated 16.11.1971 unambiguously stipulates that the properties are endowed for the purpose of performing certain poojas, religious ceremonies, etc. in Temple. In respect of the endowments created, the properties are not bifurcated or created. Perusal of the Will reveals that the endowment was created as a whole for the purpose of performance of religious ceremonies, etc., which are more specifically stated in the Will itself. 12. The Original Side Appeal was decided based on the compromise memo filed between the parties and thus, this Court had no occasion to elaborately consider the scope of endowment in the OSA. The compromise memo filed by the parties were accepted by this Court and accordingly, a judgment and decree was passed. 13. 12. The Original Side Appeal was decided based on the compromise memo filed between the parties and thus, this Court had no occasion to elaborately consider the scope of endowment in the OSA. The compromise memo filed by the parties were accepted by this Court and accordingly, a judgment and decree was passed. 13. Therefore, separate possession of a property will not exclude a person from performing the endowments, as stipulated in the Will created on 16.11.1971. In other words, the petitioner cannot claim that they are holding the A Scheduled property and the endowments are to be performed only by Mr.T.S.Rangachari. Once the endowment is constituted through a Will and the properties are bequeathed as a whole for performance of endowments, then no party can claim exemption from performing the endowment merely by partitioning the property or rescheduling the property. 14. It is needless to state that the intention of the executor of the Will has to be honoured at all circumstances and it can never be diluted at any point of time. The very intention of the executor of the Will is to ensure that the properties are protected, so that the endowment can be performed for the benefit of the Temple. Thus, the parties cannot deal with the properties subsequently for the purpose of escaping from performing the endowments, which is otherwise unambiguously stipulated in the Will executed on 16.11.1971. Therefore, the judgement and decree in the OSA is of no avail to the petitioner, since it is not only a compromise memo, based on which the decree was passed, but the OSA order itself clarifies that the endowment is to be performed. By segregating the properties, the petitioner cannot be exempted from performing the endowment and the performance of endowment is whole as far as the Will is concerned and thus, the petitioner''s claim cannot be accepted. 15. Since the property has already been endowed, in the event of failure on the part of the executors or any other person holding the property, the Fit Person of the Temple or the Competent Authority of the HR&CE Department is empowered to initiate all further actions to ensure that the wishes and the intention of the executor of the Will is honoured in order to respect the sentiments of the executor. Therefore, the respondents are bound to initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law. Therefore, the respondents are bound to initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law. The registering authority is bound to refuse registration of any document, in view of Section 22A of the Registration Act and such registration can be made only if any no objection certificate has been issued by the Competent Authority of the HR&CE Department. 16. With these clarifications, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities of the HR&CE Department for the purpose of fulfilling the endowments or to get the no objection certificate, as the case may be, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.