Madras High Court
P.Alaguvel vs D.Muthupechi .. 1St on 13 December, 2021
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.5590 of 2019
A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil,
Through its Hereditary Trustees,
1.P.Alaguvel
2.V.Tirupathy @ Venkitasamy
Ward No.12, Door No.48,
Keelaraja Veethi, Chinnamanur,
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District. .. Petitioners/Respondent/
Petitioners
-vs-
1.D.Muthupechi .. 1st Respondent/2nd respondent
Respondent
2.Ramanathan .. 2nd Respondent/Petitioner/
Third Party
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order dated 12.12.2018 made in I.A.No.163/2017 in P.T.No.
82/2017 on the file of Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court,
Madurai.
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Solai Raja
******
ORDER
The Trustees of the petitioner/Temple seek to challenge the order
dated 12.12.2018, passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue
Court, Madurai, impleading the 2nd respondent herein as a party
respondent in the proceedings.
2.The brief facts are as follows:-
2.1.The petitioner/Temple had filed a petition before the Special
Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai, against the 1st respondent for
evicting her on the ground of wilful default in respect of the rents due for
over nine faslis starting from the year 2008. Pending the proceedings,
the 2nd respondent herein had filed an application in I.A.No.163 of 2017
to implead himself as a party to the proceedings. The reason given for
seeking to have him impleaded is that he is a Trustee of the revision
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
petitioner/Temple and that he has an order in his favour in respect of the
above Temple. All these factors have been suppressed by the revision
petitioner and the 1st respondent, and the petition has been collusively
filed. He would submit that he is a necessary party to the proceedings.
3.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai, by his
order dated 12.12.2018, has allowed the application on the ground that
the trustees representing the revision petitioner Temple have not
produced documents to show that they are the trustees whereas, the 2nd
respondent has produced the decree in his favour in O.S.No.280 of 2010
dated 21.04.2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Uthamapalayam and the judgment in A.S.No.15 of 2015 against O.S.No.
280 of 2010 before the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.
4.Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that by reason of the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.635 of 1984, the trustees had to
be elected from each branch and there will always be two trustees one
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
representing each branch. Pursuant to the said judgment, the
representatives of each clan were being appointed as the trustees and the
present trustees are one who have instituted the above petition. The
petition has been filed by the revision petitioner as the 1st respondent
herein is in arrears of rent. The petition for impleading appears to be a
collusive one, made with an intention of defeating the right of the
Temple.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents would fairly concede
that the persons, who have instituted the petition, are the trustees of the
petitioner Temple. In these circumstances, there is no necessity for the
2nd respondent to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Learned
counsel for the respondents while arguing had submitted that some of the
rents due for some faslis have been received by the 2nd respondent and
this had to be stated before the Court.
6.In view of the above this Court is of the opinion that the 2nd
respondent is neither necessary, nor a proper party to the proceedings.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
Therefore, the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue
Court, Madurai, dated 12.12.2018 is set aside and the Civil Revision
Petition is allowed. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent can adduce
evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent, in case he has received the rent
whereby, the claim of the 1st respondent that she has paid the rent, the 2nd
respondent can get into the box and support the 1 st respondent that she is
not in arrears in respect of certain faslis where he has received arrears.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019
Dated: 13.12.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
