Madras High Court
Prabavathi vs S.Devarajan on 18 April, 2023
S.A No.535 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A No .535 of 2018
& CMP No. 15020 of 2018
1.Prabavathi
2.Jaichand Babu
3.Ramesh Babu
4.Jaya Shree
5. Vanishree
6.Parimala
7.Sudhakar
8.Jayaprakash
9.Pasuapaleti .... Appellants
Vs
1.S.Devarajan
2.R.Devaraj
3.B.Govindasami
4.P.Chandiran
5.V.Srinivasan
6.N.Srinivasamurthy ....Respondents
PRAYER : This Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S No.169 of
2017 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore, dated 07.06.2018
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A No.535 of 2018
confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.07.2017
passed in O.S No.103 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham
and allow the appeal.
For Appellants: Mr.R.Subramanian
for Mr.C.Jagadish
For Respondents:Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan
for Mr.M.Sathiskumar
JUDGMENT
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Subordinate court,
Gudiyatham in O.S No. 103 of 2017 and the Principal District Court,
Vellore in A.S No. 169 of 2017, the appellants preferred this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit
property/temple in S.No.71/1 has been constructed by the appellants'
forefather one Pasupalapatti Appi Naidu is his property. Further, mere
allowing to worship the temple by the public would not amount to it belong
to the the general public and also except hindu community no one is
allowed to worship the temple. But the respondent claiming the right over
the temple under the guise of worshipping the temple. Further the appellants
have Patta in their favour in respect of the suit temple. However the Court
below dismissed the suit without considering the above. Hence he prays to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A No.535 of 2018
allow this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that suit
property Arulmigu Sri Sakthi Kaliamma Kovil is a public temple for seven
villages in and around it. The respondents herein along with representatives
of the other villages formed a committee since 2004 and they renovated the
said temple and constructed necessary buildings for the temple by collecting
money from the general public. Later the said committee is converted as
Trust by Trust deed dated 08.06.2012 for the managing the said temple. But
with an ulterior motive the appellants filed the suit, the Court below rightly
dismissed the petition which needs no interference.
4. This Court admitted the appeal with the following
substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated the law
relating to administration and management of public temples?
2. Whether the conclusion of the lower appellate Court that the
civil Court has jurisdiction in view of the earlier finding in the appeal
against the order passed in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 that the
Civil Court has got jurisdiction?
5. On seeing the fact, the suit has been filed by the appellants
for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit
property/Arilumigu Sakthi Kaliamman Kovil temple situated in S.F.
No.71/1 claiming suit temple as private temple. The defendants stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A No.535 of 2018
suit temple is public temple which belongs to the 7 villagers in and around it
and the same was renovated by collecting donation from the public and
maintained by the separate community and also formed trust by trust deed
dated 08.06.2012 and maintained the temple.
6. The point to be decided is whether the suit temple is private
or not?
7. First of all, the appellants boud to prove that the temple was
built in their own land. But the appellant failed to produce any document
with regard to their ownership. Instead they produced Patta and Ex.A2 to 8/
revenue records. Admittedly, Patta is not a document for title. As rightly
pointed out by the lower Court that the appellants cannot claim declaration
based on the Patta only, they should have produced material evidence to
prove their title but they failed to adduce before the Trial Court.
Furthermore, on bare perusal of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, wherein they
admitted that suit temple was built and renovated with contribution of
public.
8. Furthermore, the judgement of this Court reported in 2015 5
LW 359 The Principal Secretary, HR & CE Department, Chennai – 34 &
Others Vs G.Paramasivam & Others extracted below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A No.535 of 2018
Public at large are worshipping in the temple by forming
necessary committees and also performed consecration. Unless competent
authority declares a temple to be a private temple, all the temple are deemed
to be ''public temples'' No suit shall be instituted in a Civil court for
determining the management of a temple or even in affairs relating to the
Temple, or with regard to dispute relating to the ownership of the Temple.
Dispute to be decided only as per Sections 63 and 10 of the Act suit is not
maintainable''.
9.Hence the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit, and
the same was rightly concluded by the Court below which needs no
interference. Accordingly questions of law are answered.
10. In result, the second appeal is dismissed as no merits. Thus
suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequentially
connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.
18.04.2023
pbl
To
1. The Principal District Court, Vellore.
2.The Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R Section.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A No.535 of 2018
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
Pbl
S.A No .535 of 2018
& CMP No. 15020 of 2018
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
