Madras High Court
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar vs S.Jayakumar on 22 August, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.552 of 2017
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar
Managing Hereditary Trustee
Arulmigu Agastheeswarar and Allied Temple
8/426-A, Pozhichalur Main Road
Pozhichalur, Chennai-600 074. .. Petitioner
vs
V.S.Sundaraja Gurukkal (died)
1.S.Jayakumar
2.S.Ramesh
3.S.Suresh
4.S.Susila Ravichandran
5.Jayanthi Mohan
6.Hemalatha Sridharan .. Respondents
(Respondents 1 to 6 brought on record as the
legal heirs of the respondent viz., V.S.Sundaraja
Gurukkal vide order of this Court dated 22.08.2023
made in C.M.P.Nos.16638, 16640 & 16643 of
2023)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 30.09.2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
made in I.A.No.1006/2015 in I.A.No.116/2015 in O.S.No.282/2014 on
the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.
For Petitioner : Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ram
ORDER
The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff. O.S.No.282 of 2014 is
a suit presented by the Hereditary Trustee of a temple. The relief that he
has sought for is,
(i) for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant not to
put up any construction;
(ii) to remove the unauthorised construction made by the 1st
defendant;
(iii) restraining the 2nd defendant from recognising the
unauthorised construction put up by way of levying of property tax;
(iv) for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to
correct the property receipts in the name of the temple and for other
consequential reliefs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
2. The 1st defendant took out an application in I.A.No.116 of 2015
in O.S.No.282 of 2014 for rejection of plaint. The ground on which he
wanted the plaint to be rejected was that the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to order eviction or for the relief aforesaid on the ground, the
said relief can be obtained under Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The learned trial Judge
was persuaded to accept the argument and rejected the plaint holding that
the Civil Court cannot grant a decree as sought for and that there is no
cause of action.
3. A review application was moved by the plaintiff in I.A.No.1006
of 2015 in I.A.No.116 of 2015 stating that the rejection of plaint is bad as
the Civil Court possess the jurisdiction. Several other grounds were
raised, which are not germane to the disposal of the revision.
4. I have heard Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi and Mr.J.Ram, the
learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully perused the
records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
5. Originally, this Court had taken a view that Section 78 of the
HR and CE Act is a bar for presentation of a suit as it is a special
enactment. The view taken by the learned single Judge was overruled by
a Division Bench of this Court by their Lordships Hon'ble Mrs.Justice
R.Banumathi and Mr.Justice M.M.Sundresh in A.N.Kumar vs.
Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam, Thiruvannamalai,
represented by its Executive Officer, (Assistant Commissioner),
Thiruvannamalai and others, 2011 (2) LW 1. This Court held that the
Civil Court does not loose jurisdiction by virtue of Section 78 of the HR
and CE Act and the Court continues to retain the jurisdiction.
6. In the light of the clear and categorical view of this Court that
the Civil Court has jurisdiction, the order passed by the trial Court
holding that the suit is not maintainable has to be set aside. Accordingly,
I.A.No.1006 of 2015 in I.A.No.116 of 2015 in O.S.No.282 of 2014,
dated 30.09.2016 is set aside as it suffers from error apparent on the face
of the record. The review is granted. The order passed in I.A.No.116 of
2015 in O.S.No.282 of 2014, dated 04.08.2015 is set aside. The suit is
restored on to the file of the learned Additional District Munsif at
Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
7. The suit having been restored, both the parties are entitled to
place their submissions on the merits of the case. I make it clear that I
have decided only on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court following the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and I have not gone into
the merits of the claims made by one party against the other.
8. The learned Additional District Munsif at Alandur is requested
to take up the suit in O.S.No.282 of 2014 and dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible, since the suit is more than five years old.
9. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
22.08.2023
(2/2)
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj/rjr
To
The Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
kj/rjr
C.R.P.(NPD)No.122 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.552 of 2017
22.08.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
