Madras High Court
N.Thangaraj vs Chinnammal (Family Manager) on 1 February, 2022
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.9659 and 9664 of 2021
1.N.Thangaraj
2.R.Rajenthiran
3.T.Nanasegaran
4.K.Deventhiran ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Chinnammal (Family Manager),
2.Pappara Amman Deity @ Nagammal
represented by its
Duraisamy Udaiyar (exonerated)
Ganesan (died)
3.Pushpam
4.Suresh
5.Bagiyalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
to set aside the order dated 11.09.2021 made in Lok Adalat Case No.81 of 2021
on the file of the National Lok Adalat held at Thuraiyur (A.S.No.64 of 2016 on
the file of the Sub Court at Thuraiyur).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Singgaravelan Senior Counsel for
Mr.D.Selvanayagam
For R1 : Mr.M.P.Senthil for
Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the award passed by the National Lok
Adalat held at Thuraiyur in A.S.No.64 of 2016 on the file of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur stating that the compromise that is entered into is
an illegal and fraudulent one and an abuse of process of Court.
2.The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Civil Revision
Petition, are herein below set out.
3.The 1st respondent herein had filed a suit O.S.No.410 of 2003 against
the 2nd respondent deity represented by Duraisamy Udaiyar and Ganesan (died)
seeking bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the
plaintiff’s enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property in her capacity as a
Family Manager. The suit was contested and was ultimately dismissed by
judgment and decree dated 25.06.2015. Challenging the said dismissal, the 1 st
respondent/plaintiff had filed A.S.No.157 of 2015 on the file of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. Pending the suit, the said Duraisamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
Udaiyar, who was representing the deity, was exonerated and and thereafter the
deity was represented by one, Ganesan. Pending the appeal, Ganesan passed
away and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 3 to 5.
Thereafter, it appears that on 11.09.2021, an award had been passed by the
National Lok Adalat, Thuraiyur stating that a joint memorandum of compromise
had been filed by the parties. The document, which is shown to be the joint
memorandum of compromise, is only an affidavit, which has been filed by the
3rd respondent herein and is not a joint memorandum of compromise signed by
all parties. Therefore, the revision petitioners/3rd parties have come forward with
this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the award.
4.Heard the counsels on either side.
5.The suit has been filed against the deity represented by its Poojaries in a
representative capacity. The procedure contemplated under Order I Rule 8 (4) of
the Code of Civil Procedure has not been followed in the instant case, which is
evident from a reading of the order impugned. Order I Rule 8 (4) of the Code of
Civil Procedure would read as follows:-
“8.(4):- No part of the claim in any such suit shall be
abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
under sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement,
compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under
rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's
expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in
sub-rule(2).”
6.Nowhere does the award state that the notice had been issued to all the
persons, who are interested in the deity. That apart, the award would state that it
has been passed on the basis of the joint memo of compromise. However, the
document, which has been produced as a joint memo of compromise is an
affidavit. This affidavit describes Pushpam as late.Pushpam, which is evident
from a reading of the 1st paragraph, which reads as follows:-
“ehd; ,e;j kDtpy; 1-k; kDjhuh;, ,e;j Nky;KiwaPl;by; 3-k;
vjph;kDjhuh;, 3-k; $Ljy; vjpu;thjp vdf;F tof;F tpguk; njupAk;. ehd;
,e;j mgpltpl;il Nfhtpy; rhh;gpYk; vdf;fhfTk; kw;w kDjhuh;fs;
rhh;ghfTk; jhf;fy; nra;tij 4,5 vjph;kDjhuh;fs; mDrupf;fpwhh;fs;.”
7.The affidavit would state that the parties have agreed that the property
belongs to the defendant. It is rather strange that such a compromise has been
entered into particularly when the property pending the appeal has been sold to
third parties. Be that as it may, the compromise has been entered into against the
procedure contemplated under Order I Rule 8(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
8.In these circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and
the order passed in Lok Adalat Case No.81 of 2021 on the file of the National
Lok Adalat held at Thuraiyur (A.S.No.64 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court at
Thuraiyur) dated 11.09.2021 is hereby set aside. The respondents 2 and 4 shall
represent the deity and if applications are moved by the interested parties,
namely, the worshippers of this deity, the learned Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur
shall consider the applications and implead them, if they prove their credentials,
considering the fact that the suit is filed against the defendants in a
representative capacity. Further, it is informed by Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned
counsel for the 1st respondent that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the
3rd petitioner and the same has to be refunded. If the payment is proved, it is
well open to the claimants to receive the same from the 3rd petitioner. After
procedure is followed and the parties are all before the Court, the learned
Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur is directed to dispose of A.S.No.64 of 2016
within a period of 2 months thereafter. It is needless to state that if the parties
after entering appearance are ready to compromise the issue, it is well open to
them to compromise the matter after following the due procedure. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 01.02.2022
Internet : Yes / No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Thuraiyur.
C.R.P.(MD) No.1800 of 2021
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
