Madras High Court
T.Andalammal vs T.C.Srinivasan on 18 July, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
T.Srinivasa Varadhachariar (Died)
1.T.Andalammal
2.T.S.Seshadri (Died)
3.T.Rajagopalan
(3rd Petitioner impleaded vide court order dated 06.07.2023
made in CMP.Nos.9979, 9987, 9994 & 10002 of 2023 in
CRP.No.719 of 2006 by this Court)
4.T.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
5.T.S.Prasanna .. Petitioners
nd
(2 Petitioner Died. Petitioners 4 and 5 brought on
record as LRs of the deceased Petitioner-2 Viz. T.S.Seshadri
vide court order dated 06.07.2023 made in CMP.Nos.9979,
9987, 9994 & 10002 of 2023 in CRP.No.719 of 2006 by this Court)
vs
1.T.C.Srinivasan
2.Arulmighu Sri Devarajaswamy Devasthanam
rep. by its Managing Trustee
Devarajaswamy Temple Complex
Chinna Kancheepuram
Kancheepuram Dist. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against
the fair and the decretal orders dated 29.04.2005 passed in I.A.No.143/96
in ASSR 6066/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram.
For Petitioners : Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel
for Mrs.R.Meenal
For Respondents : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.a.Vimal Kumar (for R1)
Mr.K.Hari Haran (for R2)
ORDER
This revision arises against an order passed in I.A.No.143 of 1996
in AS.SR.No.6066 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Kancheepuram. I.A.No.143 of 1996 was filed seeking leave to file an
appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.839 of 1994 on the file
of the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.
2.O.S.No.839 of 1994 was a suit for declaration that the memo
issued by the Executive Officer in Na.Ka.No.12/1994 dated 25.05.1994
is void ab initio and for restraining the defendant from interfering with or
altering the order dated 21.02.1992 in Na.Ka.No.26/1991 on his own file.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
3.The suit was decreed on the ground that the defendant had
literally conceded to the case. The Court recorded the statement and
disposed of the suit in terms of Order 12 Rule 6.
4.While this revision was pending from 2006, Mr.S.Parthasarathy,
brought to my notice that the respondent herein had filed a writ petition
in WP.No.9093 of 1999 to implement the order dated 21.02.1992 in
Na.Ka.No.26/1991 in terms of the judgment in O.S.No.839 of 1994 dated
08.06.1995. The writ petition was dismissed, against which an appeal
was preferred before the Division Bench in WA.No.253 of 2006.
5.The Division Bench by consent of either parties, had set aside
the order of the learned single Judge and passed the following directions:
'3.It is brought to our notice that under Section
63(e) of the H.R. & C.E. Act the jurisdiction to decide the
custom and usage is with the Joint Commissioner and not
the Commissioner. The Commissioner is directed to
forthwith transfer the proceedings to the concerned Joint
Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner shall treat the
petition as properly presented. The parties are at liberty
to raise all the contentions before the Joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner shall decide the
petition as expeditiously as possible and in any event,
within a period of three months from today. It will be
open for the parties to apply for interim reliefs, if
permissible by law The writ appeal is disposed of. No
costs. W.A.M.P.No.550 of 2006 is closed.'
6.In terms of the said directions, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as Mrs.Hema
Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would state that the
parties have approached the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment in terms of Section 63 of the HR&CE Act and
that the same is pending.
7.Since orders of this Court have directed the parties to approach
the authorities under the HR&CE Act, it is left open to the parties to
agitate their rights before the Commissioner, HR&CE. The Civil
Revision Petitioners will be entitled to file an impleading application
claiming the right under Section 63. The said application to implead will
be disposed of on its merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
8.The respondent Mr.T.C.Srinivasan is granted liberty to raise all
the objections with respect to the impleading application. Recording the
same, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.
18.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vs
To
The Sub Court,
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vs
C.R.P.(NPD)No.719 of 2006
18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
