Madras High Court
Kumarasamy Bhatter vs Arulmighu Sri Subramaniaswamy ... on 29 October, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)No.165 OF 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 02.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.165 of 2009
Kumarasamy Bhatter ... Appellant / 1st Respondent /
Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Arulmighu Sri Subramaniaswamy Devasthanam,
Through its Executive Officer /
Joint Commissioner,
Tiruchendur. ... 1st Respondent / Appellant /
1st Defendant
2. Shanmuga Bhatter ... 2nd Respondent / 2nd Respondent /
2nd Defendant
3. S.Santhosh Kumar
(R-3 was impleaded vide Order dated 29.10.2021
in C.M.P.(MD)No.8881 of 2021)
... 3rd Respondent
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.159
of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge
(Fast Track Court No.I), Thoothukudi, dated 04.11.2008
reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.400 of
1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi, dated
21.07.2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
2 S.A.(MD)No.165 OF 2009
For Appellant : Mr.S.Partha Sarathy,
for Mr.M.P.Senthil.
For R-1 : Mr.S.Madhavan
For R-3 : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For R-2 : No appearance.
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.400 of 1995 on the file of the
Sub Court, Thoothukudi, is the appellant in this second
appeal.
2. The plaintiff is one of the Archagars conducting
pooja in Arulmighu Sri Subramaniyaswamy temple,
Thiruchendur. The executive officer of the temple passed an
order dated 18.10.1993 permitting the second defendant
Shanmuga Battar to perform pooja murai of Late Ramasamy
Pattar on two particular dates. Seeking declaration that the
said order is invalid and for permanent injunction, the suit was
instituted. Written statement was filed by both the defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Based on the divergent pleadings, issues were framed. The
appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses
were examined on his side. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. The
second defendant examined himself as D.W.2 and one other
witness was examined. No evidence was adduced on the side
of the defendants. After considering the evidence on record,
the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 21.07.2003
decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the
executive officer of the temple filed A.S.No.159 of 2003 before
the Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi. The second
defendant also independently filed A.S.No.991 of 2003 before
this Court. A compromise was arrived at between the
appellant herein and Shanmuga Battar. Shanmuga Battar
withdrew the appeal filed by him. However, the appeal filed by
the executive officer was allowed and the decision of the trial
Court was reversed by the first appellate Court vide judgment
and decree dated 04.11.2008. Challenging the same, this
second appeal came to be filed.
3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
temple, I am of the view that the decision of the trial Court
may not call for any interference as such. The first appellate
Court invoking Section 108 of The Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act had non-suited the
appellant. Section 108 of the Act is as follows:-
Bar of suits in respect of
administration or management of religious
institutions, etc.—
No suit or other legal proceeding in
respect of the administration or management of a
religious institution or any other matter or dispute
for determining or deciding which provision is
made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of
Law, except under, and in conformity with, the
provisions of this Act.
It obviously means that the appellant has a right to move the
competent authority under Section 63(e) of the Act. The Joint
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Tuticorin, is the authority competent to go into
the issue raised by the appellant under Section 63(e) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act. The appellant is given liberty to file an application. As
and when such an application is filed, the same will be
numbered and taken on file and enquired into. Since the
appellant is presently discharging the function of an Archagar
in the temple, the status quo will continue.
4. This second appeal is disposed of. No costs.
28.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
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
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The Additional District Judge
(Fast Track Court No.I),
Thoothukudi.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Thoothukudi.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.165 of 2009
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
