Madras High Court
Sree Shirdi Saibaba Matheswara ... vs P.Sanjee Kumar on 4 August, 2022
S.A.No.559 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.559 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.11148 of 2022
Sree Shirdi Saibaba Matheswara Trust,
Naickenpalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk,
Represented by its Managing Trustee-
Mr.N.Dharmalingam ...Appellant
Vs
1. P.Sanjee Kumar
2. P. Sundarrajan
3. S.Yasoda
4. V.Parthiban
5. R.Balakrishnan
6. P.R.V.Dhanraju
7. J. Gopalakrishnan ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the
judgment and decree dated 25.03.2022 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2017 on the
file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore which
reversed the decree and judgment dated 18.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.1380
of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.S.V. Pravin Rathinam
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anandhamurthy
1 to 6 /Caveators
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant herein before this Court, challenging the
judgment and decree dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.39 of 2017 in and by
which, the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore has been reversed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the
same array as before the Trial Court.
3. The suit O.S.No.1380 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff for the
following reliefs:
a) Declaring that the plaintiff's Trust are in
effective management and administration of Matheswaran
and Sree Shirdi Saibaba Temple situated in the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
property, which was consecrated on 01.04.2012, Bhoomi
Pooja performed on 06.05.2012, when the statues of Sree
Shirdi Saibaba and Sivanesan Swamigal were installed
under the Neem Tree which is the Gurusthan under the
leadership of Shri Sairam and other persons including
Mumbai Varadarajan and all the constructions were done
for the roof and shelter of the temple at the instance of
plaintiff's Trustees who have contributed for the
constructions and development;
b) Granting permanent injunction restraining the
defendants or any person claiming through them or their
henchmen men disturbing the peaceful possession and
performance of Poojas to the statues of Shree Shridi
Saibaba, Sivanesan Swamigal, Sree Matheswaran Lingam
by the plaintiff herein and their Poojaris and the public
devotees from worshipping;
c) To award costs to the plaintiff herein;
4. The facts in brief necessary for disposing of the above appeal
are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
(i) It is the case of the plaintiff, which is a Trust, that the suit
property and the larger extent belonged to one Venkatasamy Naidu. The
said Venkatasamy Naidu had four sons, (i) Rangappa Naidu, (ii)
Venkatesulu Naidu, (iii) Sivanesan @ Srinivasalu Naidu and (iv)
Palanisamy Naidu. The first son Rangappa Naidu had a son, Soundarrajan.
The Venkatesulu Naidu had four sons, C.V.Raju, Prakash (4th defendant),
Manoharan and Parthiban (5th defendant). Sivanesan @ Srinivasalu Naidu
was a bachelor. Palanisami Naidu had two sons, P. Sanjeevkumar and
Sundararajan, the first and second defendants respectively.
(ii) It is the case of the plaintiff that on 20.10.1965, there was a
partition between the sons of Venkatasamy Naidu. Except for 15 cents in
S.F.No.483/1, all other lands were partitioned among the brothers. The said
15 cents of land consisted of a temple and a Neem tree and this was kept
aside for common public purpose. Thereafter, the temple for Sri Sai Baba
was also constructed by the devotees of Sivanesan @ Srinivasalu Naidu,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
who had given himself upto the service of Sai Baba and had attained Mukthi
in the year 1996. The devotees had come together to put up a temple with
statues of Sri Sai Baba, Sivanesasn Swamigal besides other deities. Bhoomi
pooja for the temple was done on 06.05.2012. It is their case that the
persons, who had helped to install the temple along with statue of Sivanesan
Swamigal and who had consecrated the temple were C.V.Raju and
Dharmalingam, Suresh Babu and Neelaveni. None of the defendants nor
their family members had participated in the event except C.V.Raju,
S/o.Venkatesalu Naidu. The case of the plaintiff is that the Trust has not
only been running the temple but also also providing logistic for devotees to
enable them to come to the temple from nearby villages.
(iii) While so, the defendants 1 to 8 have formed a Trust in the year
2014, claiming to be the authors of the Trust in the name and style of
"Sivanesan Swamigal Trust". The Trust is situated at Door No.3/166,
Matheswaran Koil Thottam, Naickenpalayam, Coimbatore. After the
registration of the trust on 29.10.2014, a Gift Deed dated 12.11.2014 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
registered in favour of Shree Shirdi Sivanesan Swamigal Memorial Trust by
the defendants 4 and 6. Under this Gift deed, an extent of 6 cents and 375
sq.ft of vacant land in S.F.No.483/1 was gifted to the above referred Trust.
Thereafter, the defendants started interfering in the plaintiff's enjoyment of
the temple and the other related activities. The defendants attempted to
forcibly enter and disturb the worshippers on 02.12.2014 at about 9.00 am.
The plaintiff would submit that they are entitled to run the temple and this
right cannot be snatched away. The plaintiff would submit that the temple
is situate in the common land, over which, none had the right to alienate or
claim title. In the light of the activity of the defendants, they have come
forward with the above suit.
5. The first and second defendants had filed a written statement,
which was adopted by the defendants 3 to 8, in which, they would deny the
contention of the plaintiff that 15 cents had been kept aside for common
purpose. They would also contend that the plaintiff had nothing to do with
the construction or performing of poojas in the temple, which is constructed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
in an area of 6 cents in S.F.No.483/1. The defendants would contend that
S.F.No.483 measured a total extent of 9.67 acres. The northern extreme of
483/1 measured about 4.83 1/2 acres of land with a Neem tree and Well,
which belonged to four sons of Venkatasamy Naidu and an equal extent
belonged to one Ranga Nayan. On 20.10.1965, the lands in S.F.No.483/1
measuring 4.83 1/2 acres was allotted to share of Palanisamy, the father of
the defendants 1 and 2. He was allotted the entire extent. From that date,
the said Palanisamy has been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid
extent. The defendants would submit that their paternal uncle, Sivanesan @
Srinivasalu Naidu, who was a staunch devotee of Sree Shridi Saibaba and
had a huge following of devotees, desired that a temple be constructed and
dedicated for Shiridi Baba and to have portrait of the said Sivanesan @
Srinivasalu Naidu. Ultimately, the father of the defendants in consultation
with them had agreed to install and unveil the portrait of Shridi Saibaba and
Sivanesan Swamigal respectively. It was the defendants, who had put the
construction of an RCC roof building on the lands comprised in
S.F.No.483/1, next to the Neem tree and Matheswara Lingam. After the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
demise of their father, the defendants 1 and 2 executed a Gift Deed dated
29.10.2014 bequeathing the property in favour of Shirdi Sai Sivanesan
Swamiji Memorial Trust. The extent that was gifted was 6 cents and 375
sq.ft in Survey Field No.483/1, Naickenpalyam Vilalge, Coimbatore Taluk.
The father of the defendants died on 20.11.2013. The defendants would
submit that the plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit property, which is
totally under the control of the defendants. Therefore, they sought for
dismissal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court, namely, The learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Coimbatore by judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 was pleased
to decree the suit. Challenging the same, the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8
had filed an appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore. The appellate Court took a view
that the suit in question was one predominantly for claiming a right to the
property and the prayer had been so innocuously drafted to camouflage the
main relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
7. The learned District Judge had also considered Ex.A2=B25-
Partition Deed in and by which, the lands in S.No.483/1 had been
partitioned. The learned Judge, on perusing the same, had observed that
there was no setting apart of 15 cents of land in common as pleaded by the
plaintiff. On the contrary, the total extent of 4.83 1/2 cents was allotted to
the share of Palanisamy, the father of the defendants 1 and 2. The lower
appellate Court had also taken into consideration the various documents that
had been filed on the side of the defendants to show that they are in
possession and enjoyment of the said temple. Therefore, the learned Judge
had allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial
Court. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials available on record.
9. The plaintiff would admit that a Partition had taken place on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
20.10.1965. However, it is their case that after the partition, 15 cents of
land was retained in common as it consisted of a Neem tree and Matheswara
Lingam and thereafter, the temple for Shridi Sai Baba has also been put up
there upon. However, they have not filed any document to prove this fact.
The defendants in turn have proved that under the Partition Deed the suit
property and its extent was allotted to the share of Palanisamy, the father of
the defendants 1 and 2 and no property had been kept apart in common.
This is evident from a perusal of Ex.A2=B25. While so, the plaintiff has
now filed the suit for the reliefs set out supra which in effect amounts to
making a claim on the property upon which the temple is situate. In the
description of the property, the plaintiff has described the extent of 4.83 ½
acres in S.No.483, out of a total extent of 9.67 acres within the specific
boundaries as belonging to them. That has to be read in conjunction with
the relief, which would clearly show that the plaintiff was claiming a right to
the extent of 15 cents out of 4.83 1/2 acres.
10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
contend that the Court should only consider the form of the pleading and not
delve into interpreting it, this argument cannot be countenanced especially
when the defendants have been able to establish that the property
measuring 4.83 1/2 cents, which included the 15 cents of suit property had
been allotted to the share of Palanisamy, the father of the defendants 1 and
2. That apart, the lower Appellate Court has considered the evidence of
P.Ws 3 to 5, who are the plaintiff's witnesses, who have deposed that during
the consecration of the temple, it was the defendants, who had taken an
active part and not the plaintiff. That apart, the plaintiff-Trust has not filed
any income tax records to show the expenditure incurred by them whereas
the defendants had produced the documents regarding the same. The
plaintiff, who claim to be in possession of the property is unable to state the
name in which the electricity connection for the temple exists.
11. Be that as it may, the plaintiff has not been able to establish
their claim over the suit property, which even as per their version, belongs to
the family of Venkatsamy Naidu. The Trial Court has relied upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
Advocate Commissioner's report for finding as to who was in possession of
the suit property. This is a totally erroneous approach especially when the
parties have filed documentary proof with reference to the suit property.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6/Caveators would
bring to the notice of the Court the fact that after the appeal in the instant
case had been allowed, the persons claiming to be the devotees, have filed
the suit in a representative capacity against the appellant-Trust and these
persons are seeking the very same relief. An injunction was also obtained
by the third parties, which has been stayed by this Court. The appellant has
not made out any question of law, much less substantial question of law,
warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the second appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
04.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
srn
To
1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore.
2. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, Kodumudi.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.559 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
S.A.No.559 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.11148 of 2022
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
