Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Muthukrishnan (Died) on 20 April, 2023
SA.No.1586 of 2001
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
SA.No.1586 of 2001
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by District Collector,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Admn. Dept.,
Chennai.
3.The Deputy Commissioner,
HR & CE, Tirunelveli.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE Admn., Tirunelveli - 2.
5.The Executive Officer,
A/m. Subramaniya Swamy Temple,
Vallioor. ...Appellants
vs.
1.Muthukrishnan (Died)
2.Thangavelu @ Perumal (Died)
3.Inbamani
4.Velkumar
5.Kannan
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
6.Subashini
7.Poonkani (Died)
8.Ramesh
9.Kanagavel
10.Padmajalatha
11.Rajesh Kumar
12.Ravikumar
13.Krishnakumar
14.Rajasubha ... Respondents
(R3 to R6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased second
respondent vide order of the Court dated 27.12.2002 in CMP.Nos.10080
to 10082 of 2002 in SA.No.1586 of 2001)
(R7 to R14 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased first respondent
vide Order of the Court dated 26.10.2016 in CMP(MD)Nos.5606 to 5608
of 2016 in SA.No.1586 of 2001)
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2000 in A.S.No.
30 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli
confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.1997 in O.S.No.104 of
1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.A.Kannan
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil for R8 to R14
No appearance for R3 to R6
ORDER
The appellants are the defendants. The respondents 1 and 2 are the
plaintiffs. The respondents 1 and 2 died and hence their legal heirs are
brought on records as respondents 7 to 14 and respondents 3 to 6
respectively.
2. The deceased respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs have filed a suit
for declaration and injunction against the appellants / defendants in
O.S.No.89 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.
Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Valliyoor and renumbered as O.S.No.104 of 1996. The
suit was decreed on 26.02.1997 in favour of the deceased respondents 1
and 2 / plaintiffs. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the
Trial Court, the appellants / defendants have filed an Appeal before the
Principal District Court, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.30 of 1999. The Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
was heard by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, who
dismissed the same on 26.09.2000. Challenging the said dismissal of the
Appeal, the appellants / defendants have filed the present Second Appeal
before this Court raising the following substantial questions of law.
"(a) Whether the particulars of the suit
property is right?
(b) Whether the suit property is
individual property and in enjoyment of
individual?
(c) Whether the suit is barred by TN Act
22/59?
(d) Whether the plaintiff is eligible for
relief claimed for?"
3. On 26.07.2002, this Court had admitted the present Second
Appeal on all the above substantial questions of law raised by the
appellants / defendants.
4. One S.Balasubramanian and Selvi Manickavasaga Vithaga
Vinayaga Vadivoo have filed C.M.P.(MD)No.5447 of 2019 in the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
Second Appeal seeking to implead themselves as respondents in the
Second Appeal, wherein, this Court has passed an order on 27.11.2019
stating that considering the submissions of both counsel and considering
the fact that suits are pending before the Trial Court in respect of the title
of the property in dispute, the title of the property shall be decided in the
suits pending before the Trial Court and the question as to whether the
HR & CE Department has right to administer the Temple alone will be
decided in the present Appeal.
5. When the matter came up for hearing on 12.04.2023, this Court
orally directed the appellants to get instructions as to whether the HR &
CE Department is administering the Temple.
6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
Additional Advocate General, on instructions, would submit that HR &
CE Department has never taken charge over the administration of the
Temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
7. Considering the fact that HR & CE Department has never taken
charge over the administration of the Temple, nothing survives for
consideration in the substantial questions of law formulated by this
Court. However, if any change of circumstances arises in future, the
appellants are at liberty to take over the administration of the Temple if
necessity arises.
8. In view of the above discussion, the Second Appeal is
dismissed. However, it is left open to the appellants and the respondents
to establish their right and title over the suit property in the pending suits
mentioned in the affidavit to C.M.P.(MD)No.5447 of 2019 in S.A.No.
1586 of 2001. No costs.
20.04.2023
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mbi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
To
1.The II Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli
2.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Valliyoor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.1586 of 2001
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mbi
SA.No.1586 of 2001
20.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
