Madras High Court
The Joint Commissioner(Hr And Ce) vs Kr.Meenakshi Sundaram. :Ist on 10 August, 2023
2023/MHC/3782
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRVARTHY
W.A(MD)NO.1323 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9983 of 2023
The Joint Commissioner(HR and CE),
Madurai. :Appellant/Third Respondent
.vs.
1.KR.Meenakshi Sundaram. :Ist Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The District Registrar,
Madurai South,
Madurai District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Thirupparakundram,
Madurai. : Respondents 2 and 3/
Respondents 1 and 2
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.249 of 2023, dated 28.2.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Addl.Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special .Govt.Pleader
For Respondent-1 :Mr.T.Mohan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan
JUDGMENT
*********
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned
Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first
respondent herein in W.P(MD)No.249 of 2023.
2.Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel on record, takes notice
for the first respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Appeal
is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itslef.
3.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this
Writ Appeal are as follows:
The first respondent herein claims title to the property in
S.No.32/2, measuring an extent of 29 cents of vacant land in Ward
No.2, Thirupparankundram Registration District. It is the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first respondent that the property belongs to the first respondent’s
ancestor. The title to the property as well as to the temple, was
decided in a suit in O.S.No.183 of 1968 before the II Additional Sub
Court, Madurai. It is to be noted that the suit filed by the
predecessor-in-interst of the first respondent was dismissed and the
first appeal had also ended as against the first respondent’s
predecessor-in-interest. However, this Court, in Second Appeal in
S.A.No.1783 of 1970, by judgment, dated 9.3.1977, allowed the
Second Appeal upholding the title of the first respondnet. It is
declared that the first respondent is the owner of the suit property.
The temple was also held to be a private temple of the first
respondent’s predecessor-in-interest. However, there was an
observation made by this Court in the Second Appeal at the time of
disposal of the Second Appeal that steps can be taken by the HR
andCE Board if the temple later became a public temple. Based on
the observation made by this Court while disposal of the Second
Appeal, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner has declared the
temple as a public temple, in exercise of his power under Section
63(a) of the HR and CE Act and on appeal in A.P.NO.89 of 2010, the
Commissioner also confirmed the order declaring the temple as a
public temple. Aggrieved by the findings of the Joint Commissioner
and the Commissioner of HR andCE Department, a statutory suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
came to be filed by the first respondent’s predecessor-in-interest in
O.S.No.919 of 2012 before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam.The said
suit was decreed by specifically holding that the temple is a private
temple. While holding that the temple is a private temple and
setting aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner as well as
the Commissioner of HR and CE Department, the learned
Subordinate Judge had made an observation in the following lines:
“,Wjpapy; KjNyw;G tof;F 919/12 kw;Wk; KjNyw;G
tof;F 1212/12 tof;fpy; thjp NfhhpAs;s ghpfhuq;fs; thjpf;F
fpilf;fj;jf;fnjd;Wk; jhthNfhtpiy nghJf;Nfhtpyhf
mwptpj;J gpuhjpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s OA.50/80 kDtpy; 2k; gpujpthjp
12.7.10k; Njjp gpwg;gpj;Js;s cj;juTk; mij vjpHj;J jhf;fy;
nra;ag;gl;Ls;s Nky;KiwaPL AP.89/10 y; 196.12 Njjp 1k;
gpujpthjp gpwg;gpj;Js;s cj;juTk; nry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd uj;J
nra;ag;gLfpwJ. jhth rk;ge;jg;gl;l Nfhtpy; thjpfSf;F
nrhe;jkhd jdpahH Nfhtpy; vd tpsk;Gif nra;ag;gLfpwJ.
gpuhjpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s tPugj;jpu Rthkp Nfhtpiy guhkhpf;f
nghWg;G eguhf 3k; gpujpthjpia epakpj;J 3.3.2003k; Njjpa
nr.K.e.f.ek;gh;.503.01 V-3 eltbf;if %yk; 3k; gpujpthjp
gpwg;gpj;j cj;juTk; mJ rk;ge;jkhf Nky;KiwaPl;by; 19.6.2012
k; Njjp Mh;.gp.116-10 y; 1k; gpujpthjp gpwg;gpj;j cj;juTk; uj;J
nra;ag;gLfpwJ. jhth rk;ge;jg;gl;l Nfhtpiy thjp rl;l
tpNuhjkhf guhjPdk; nra;Js;sjhf $wg;gLtJ Fwpj;Jk;
rl;ltpNuhjkhf guhjPdk; nra;atpUg;gjhf $wg;gLtJ Fwpj;Jk;
jf;f rl;l eltbf;iffis ,e;J rka mwepiya Ml;rpj;Jiw
vLj;Jf;nfhs;syhk; vd;Wk; ,t;tof;fpd; rq;fjp kw;Wk;
#o;epiyia fUj;jpy; nfhz;L mtutH nryTnjhifia
mtutHfNs Vw;Wf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;
jPHg;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The observations that the Department could intiate action
challenging alienation are quite contrary to the declaration
regarding the status of the temple as a private temple.Therefore,
an application was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, in I.A.NO.233 of
2017 in O.S.No.919 of 2012 to expunge the adverse remarks which
are contrary to the decision on the issue raised and decided by the
Sub-Court in O.S.No.919 of 2012. This application was dismissed by
the learned Subordinate Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs/predecessors-in-interest of the first respondent, filed a
revision in C.R.P(MD)No.1285 of 2021.This Court, after recording
the finding that the Deputy Commissioner has earlier declared the
temple as a private temple and belonging to the family of the
plaintiffs, held that the HR and CE Department has no locus-standi
to take action against the plaintiffs. Therefore the order passed by
the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissing the application filed by
the plaintiffs was set aside and the revision petition was allowed by
this Court.The observation of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge
contrary to the declaration was also removed. The learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that a Review Appliation is
pending before this Court to review the judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.It is in the meanwhile, the first respondent presented the
document for registration in relation to the property which was
declared as the property of the first respondent in the first suit. The
document was kept pending and returned to the first respondent on
the ground that the property is shown as the property of the
temple and the property cannot be subject to valuation indicating
the property as property of the temple. The order of the Sub-
Registrar was challenged before this Court in W.P(MD)No.249 of
2023 and the learned Single Judge of this Court, after elaborately
considering the merits of the matter, allowed the said Writ Petition
with a direction to the Petitioner to represent the document for
registration and the second respondent was directed to register the
document, subject to the other formalities. Liberty was also given
to the Registration Department for correction or revision in the
guideline register. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ Appeal is
filed by the Joint Commissioner of HR and CE Department, who is
the respondent in the Writ Petition.
6.This Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge. This Court is of the view that the
HR and CE Department is trying to relitigate the issues which had
already been settled long back in the civil proceedings. First of all,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the title to the property is declared in favour of the predecessors-
in-interest of the first respondent even in the judgment made in
S.A.No.1783 of 1974 in the year 1977 itself. Based upon the
observation made in the said judgment which was dated
9.3.1977,further proceedings were initiated to change the
character of the temple as a public temple under Section 63(a) of
the HR and CE Act. Though the order passed by the Joint
Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of HR and CE Department was
confirmed by the Commissioner by declaring the temple as a public
temple, it is admitted that the order of the Joint Commissioner and
Commsisioner was set aside and the temple was declared as a
private temple of the first respondent’s family in the statutory suit
in O.S.No.919 of 2012. As pointed out earlier, the observations of
the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit holding that the HR and
CE Department can have control over the affairs of the temple was
also deleted and held in favour of the first respondent in
C.R.P(MD)No.1285 of 2021. In such circumstances, quite contrary
to the findings of the Civil Court in the first round and in the second
round of litigation, the appellant is now trying to establish the right
over the temple, it may be for some extraneous reasons.
7.This Court, having regard to the admitted facts, is unable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sustain any of the arguments made by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellant. The learned
Additional Advocate General relying upon the order passed by the
HR and CE Board to appoint a fit pertson in respect of the temple,
submit that the power of the Department to bring the temple under
their control in relation to the affairs of the temple has been
admitted by the first respondent. This submission is not supported
by any relevant material. Even assuming that an order is passed,
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent states
that the order was acted upon and the temple is under the
management of the first respondent all along. It is further stated
that every attempt is made by the appellant to interfere with the
first respondent’s right is successfully defended and that the
respondents’s title is declared by the decree of the Civil Court. The
contention of the appellant that the temple will come under the
control of the appellant, cannot be accepted. This Court finds that
the claim of the appellant is nothing but a re-litigation.This Court
and the Honourable Supreme Court repeatedly held that the parties
cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issues which had already been
settled and finality is reached. It is nothing but an abuse of process
of law to conmeforward with contentions ignoring the legal
implications following the Civil Court’s decree. Therefore the Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [D.B.C.,J.]
10.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.1323 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9983 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
