JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in impugned order dated 15.12.2020 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to receive and register any document for the petitioner''s property situated at No.11, South Mada Street, Nungambakkam (O.S.No.179,161 and 183 and R.S.No.452; C.C.No.O.F.B.1060 – 3136 sq.ft.) for the purposes of Registration and further direct the fourth respondent to consider patta application of the petitioner for the said property.) The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the first respondent to receive and register any document for the petitioner''s property situated at No.11, South Mada Street, Nungambakkam (O.S.No.179,161 and 183 and R.S.No.452; C.C.No.O.F.B.1060 – 3136 sq.ft.) for the purposes of Registration and further direct the fourth respondent to consider patta application of the petitioner for the said property. 2. After arguing the case for a considerable length of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has chosen to withdraw the present writ petition. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, raised serious objections mainly on the ground that several such writ petitions are withdrawn on earlier occasions with an idea to grab the property belonging to the temples and through Forum Shopping. 4. The subject properties are belonging to the temple and the few greedy men are dealing with the temple properties based on certain documents, which all are not within the knowledge of the Temple Authorities and the HR & CE Department. 5. Certain vital documents are also not produced and certain facts are suppressed. Thus, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, made a submission that the facts are to be recorded in the present writ petition, so as to prevent such persons from dealing with temple properties in suspicious manner. 6. The petitioner states that he has presented the Settlement Deed in favour of his legal heirs in respect of the subject property in Nungambakkam. The first respondent-Sub Registrar refused to register the Settlement Deed on the ground that the second respondent-Temple raised an objection under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The objection submitted by the Executive Officer of the second respondent-temple reveals that the subject property is belonging to the temple. 7. The first respondent-Sub Registrar refused to register the Settlement Deed on the ground that the second respondent-Temple raised an objection under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The objection submitted by the Executive Officer of the second respondent-temple reveals that the subject property is belonging to the temple. 7. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he is the owner of the subject property and relied on the Deed of Sale executed at Madras on 30.05.1953. 8. In respect of the said document, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, drew the attention of this Court that there is no description about the title of the vendors in the said Sale Deed of the year 1953. The previous history regarding the title has not been stated in the said Sale Deed of the year 1953 and as per the Temple Authorities one Smt.R.Valliammal, who was holding the post of Trustee of the second respondent-temple illegally sold the property to third parties and subsequently actions were initiated against the said Smt.R.Valliammal and she was removed from the Trusteeship. One of the charges framed against the said Smt.R.Valliammal, Trustee was that she had sold the properties illegally to the third parties. 9. The details of the properties belonging to Arulmigu Agatheswarar Prasana Venkatesa Perumal Thirukoil, Nungambakkam has been furnished as under:- S.No. Resurvey No. Grounds Sq.Ft. To whom property was sold Temple land sold by Court order details Date of judgment Registration Document No. and Date 1. 452/69 1.218.0 M.Desinga Rao Erstwhile Hereditary Trustee Mrs.Valli-ammal E.S.No.73/71,IV Judge, Small Causes Court 03.11.71 1598/21, 27.11.71 2. 452/1 0.102.6 Loganathan -do- E.S.No.155/71, IV Judge 14.03.74 197/76, 24.02.76 3. 452/62 and 452/1 1.136.2 R.Nammalwar -do- O.S.No.4360/73, City Civil Court 22.02.75 666/78, 27.06.78 4. 452/29 0.203.0 P.S.Paranjothi Pillai -do- O.S.No.8263/72, City Civil Court 13.08.73 14/78, 10.01.78 5. 452/4 1.125.0 Savithri Ammal -do- E.S.No.101/71, III Judge 30.03.70 1149/79, 10.08.79 6. 452/1 1.100.0 V.Alagavel -do- E.S.No.137/71, III Judge 30.03.79 1151/79, 20.08.79 7. 452/34 1.142.8 M.S.Chinnathambi Nadar -do- E.S.No.96/77, II Judge 24.09.79 29.09.79 8. 452/1 0.037.5 Saraswathi Ammal -do- E.S.No.153/71, III Judge 30.03.79 317/80, 05.03.80 9. 452/1 0.018.4 Lakshmi Ammal -do- O.S.No.398/73, City Civil Court 22.03.77 384/80, 13.03.80 10. 452/34 1.127.7 V.Ranganathan -do- O.S.No.4357/73, City Civil Court 15.11.77 1676/80, 13.10.80 11. 452/54 0.094.6 Narasaiah -do- O.S.No.5776/73, City Civil Court 11.07.77 623/81, 05.08.81 12. 452/34 1.142.8 M.S.Chinnathambi Nadar -do- E.S.No.96/77, II Judge 24.09.79 29.09.79 8. 452/1 0.037.5 Saraswathi Ammal -do- E.S.No.153/71, III Judge 30.03.79 317/80, 05.03.80 9. 452/1 0.018.4 Lakshmi Ammal -do- O.S.No.398/73, City Civil Court 22.03.77 384/80, 13.03.80 10. 452/34 1.127.7 V.Ranganathan -do- O.S.No.4357/73, City Civil Court 15.11.77 1676/80, 13.10.80 11. 452/54 0.094.6 Narasaiah -do- O.S.No.5776/73, City Civil Court 11.07.77 623/81, 05.08.81 12. 452/29 1.149.9 T.S.Seshachalam Chetty -do- O.S.No.4359/73, City Civil Court 02.07.77 2053/81, 26.08.81 13. 452/36 1.031.0 M.Uthamchand -do- O.S.No.6317/74, City Civil Court 16.03.78 322/81, 30.09.85 14. 452/1 0.093.6 P.Govindarajan -do- E.S.No.157/71 24.07.80 2802/81, 14.12.81 15. 452/1 0.120.7 Irusappa Naicker -do- O.S.No.2678/73, City Civil Court 31.07.75 40/83, 04.12.83 16. 452/20 0.085.0 P.N.Radha Krishnan Mudaliar -do- E.S.No.94/71 28.09.73 531/83, 07.05.83 17. 452/54 0.153.4 S.Sukumari -do- E.S.No.4/83 25.02.84 210/84, 28.04.84 18. 452/61 0.061.6 B.Thanikachalam -do- E.S.No.200/82 25.02.84 229/84, 10.05.84 19. 452/34 2.021.6 P.R.Ramalingam Chettiar -do- O.S.No.5775/73, City Civil Court 11.08.77 401/84, 23.08.84 20. 452/20 0.126.0 K.P.Periaswami -do E.S.No.184/82 27.07.84 557/84, 12.12.84 21. 452/1 2.113.9 C.R.Rajalakshmi -do- O.S.No.5277/69, City Civil Court 23.12.71 455/85, 23.07.85 22. 452/20 1.134.4 Kannammal -do- E.S.No.125/80 13.03.82 905/82, 28.04.82 23. 452 0.120.5 Saradambal -do- E.S.No.107/87 31.07.91 595/92, 29.07.92 24. 452/29 0.046.8 T.Madhavan -do- E.S./No.52/1987 29.10.87 469/87, 19.11.87 25. 452/29 1.005.0 Syamandakamini -do- O.S.No.6500/81 28.11.84 10. In respect of the statement furnished by the Temple Authorities regarding the properties belonging to the temple, the writ petitioner also presented Sale Deed in respect of the very same Survey Number i.e., Survey Number 452. 11. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, relied on the ''Stone Inscriptions'' even now available in the temple i.e., Arulmigu Agatheswarar Prasana Venkatesa Perumal Thirukoil, Nungambakkam and the relevant portions of the said ''Stone Inscriptions'' were transcribed and it reads as under:- 12. The said copy of the ''Stone Inscriptions'' has been attested by the Deputy Director (Retired), Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu. 13. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, reiterated that the said one Smt.R.Valliammal, Trustee illegally sold the temple properties and thereafter certain transfer of property took place in fraudulent manner and therefore, the Temple Authorities filed their objections before the Registering Authority under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 14. 13. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, reiterated that the said one Smt.R.Valliammal, Trustee illegally sold the temple properties and thereafter certain transfer of property took place in fraudulent manner and therefore, the Temple Authorities filed their objections before the Registering Authority under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 14. The temple properties at large scale across the State of Tamil Nadu have been alienated illegally and irregularly and without the knowledge of the Temple Authorities and the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. Either the Trustees or the Temple Administrators have suppressed the facts regarding donations made to the Temples and the Deities. The Competent Authorities of the HR&CE Department and the Temple Authorities are bound to cull out the truths. They have to conduct the roving enquiry, collect documents and initiate all appropriate actions to resume the properties belonging to the Temples and the Religious Institutions. Even the writ petitions are filed without even impleading the Temple Authorities and the HR&CE Department in property matters as the greedy men are creating sequence of documents to grab the properties belonging to the temples. 15. At the outset, large scale immovable properties are alienated in an illegal manner by creating number of documents behind the back of the HR&CE Department and the Temple Authorities. The High Court being Parens Patriae has to step in and to protect the interest of the temples by going to any extent. 16. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Two Others vs. The Director, Archaeological Survey of India and Two Others [in Review Application (Writ) Nos.169 and 170 of 2021 judgment pronounced on 02.06.2023], wherein in paragraph-16, it has been observed as under:- “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. The Will of the donor is of paramount importance, which cannot be surpassed at executive pleasure against the interest of the temples. At this juncture, it is necessary to place on record the importance of maintenance of accounts regarding the contribution by the donors, hundi collection, expenditure and importance of independent audit performed by an authority not forming part of state functionary. At this juncture, it is necessary to place on record the importance of maintenance of accounts regarding the contribution by the donors, hundi collection, expenditure and importance of independent audit performed by an authority not forming part of state functionary. Therefore, the alienation by the government can only be in consonance with the provisions and object of the HR&CE Act; and that, the actions taken by the HR&CE Department shall always be subject to judicial review as this Court being one of the guardians of the rights guaranteed by the constitution, is vested with such power.” 17. No doubt, few greedy men are committing illegality, fraudulent activities in the matter of transfer of properties. However, certain innocent purchasers are also suffered on account of such fraudulent activities of such persons. 18. When several transactions took place and transfer of properties have been made fraudulently, undoubtedly innocent purchasers have suffered. However, this Court cannot show any misplaced sympathy in respect of such innocent purchasers as it is the doctrine principle of caveat emptor, which would stare against them. 19. The subject properties are belonging to the temple and therefore transfer of properties happened without the knowledge of the temple and the HR&CE Department are not binding on the Temple Authorities. Certain writ petitions are filed behind the back of the Temple Authorities and the HR&CE Department and orders are also obtained for unjust gains and in those orders wherein the temple is not a party, are not binding on the temple. 20. Though the petitioner claims that he is an innocent purchaser of the immovable property, several facts are either not known to the petitioner or intentionally suppressed. In either of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the Registering Authority in the present case has rightly refused to register the Sale Deed by invoking Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Even the second respondent-Temple Authorities in coordination with the HR&CE Department are bound to initiate all appropriate actions to resume the properties belonging to the temple to honour the sentiments of the donors and for the benefit of the Temple and the Devotees and by following the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.