Appanna Naicker :Second ... vs Palanisamy Naicker
2023 Latest Caselaw 6082 Mad

                                                      1

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED: 13.06.2023

                                                   CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                       A.S.NOs.564 and 565 OF 1999


                     A.S(MD)NO.564 OF 1999


                     Appanna Naicker               :Second defendant/Appellant


                                            .vs.


                     1.Palanisamy Naicker

                     2.Andi Naicker(died)

                     3.The Commissioner,
                       Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
                       Madras – 34.

                     4.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       represented by its District Collector,
                       Tiruchirappalli.            :Defendants 1 to 3/Respondents

                     5.Chinnammal

                     6.Andal

                     7.Balamurugan

                     8.Minor Kalaiselvi            :Respondents 5 to 8/proposed
                                                          Respondents 5 to 8

                     9.Vellaiammal

                     10.Seelamma Naicker

                     11.Thatha Naicker
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                      2


                     12.Pomma Naicker,

                     13.Manivasagam

                     14.Selvakumar                 :Respondents 9 to 14/proposed
                                                                Respondents 9 to 14

                     (Respondents 5 to 14 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased
                     second respondent vide order of this Court made in
                     C.M.P(MD)Nos.5265 and 5266 of 2017 in A.S.No.564 of 1999)

                     A.S(MD)NO.565 OF 1999


                     Seelanayakkanpatti, Thoppanpatti, Sadayampatti,
                     Thekamalai Ayyanar Temple, represented by its
                     Hereditory Trustee,
                     Appanna Naicker.           :Plaintiff/Appellant


                                            .vs.


                     1.Andi Naicker(died)

                     2.Andiammal

                     3.Vellaiammal

                     4.Seelapamba Naicker

                     5.Kama Naicker

                     6.Chinnappa Naicker(died)

                     7.Palanisamy Naicker

                     8.Chinnammal

                     9.Andal

                     10.Balamurugan

                     11.Minor Kalaiselvi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                     3

                     12.Vellaiammal

                     13.Seelama Naicker

                     (Respondents 12 and 13 are deleted as they are already on
                     record as respondents 3 and 4 vide order of this Court dated
                     21.12.2022 and the respondents rank is rearranged in view of the
                     order of this Court, dated 21.12.2022 made in C.M.P(MD)No.12477
                     of 2022, dated 21.12.2022)

                     12.Thatha Naicker

                     13.Pomma Naicker

                     14.Manivasagam

                     15.Selvakumar

                     16.Pommayee

                     17.Chinnaiyyaa

                     18.Palanisamy

                     19.Thangaraj

                     (Memo presented before the Court on 31,10.2022is recorded, as
                     Respondent No.14 died and the respondents 2,10,11 and 15 who
                     are already on record, are recorded as Lrs of the deceased R14
                     vide order of this Court made in C.M.P(MD)No.9323 of 2017 in
                     A.S.No.565 of 1999, dated 31,10.2022)

                     (Cause title amended as per order made in C.M.P(MD)No.8302 to
                     8309 of 2018 in A.S.Nos.564 and 565 of 1999)

                     (Respondents 8 to 15 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased
                     first respondent vide order of this Court made in C.M.P(MD)No.
                     9326 of 2017 in A.S.No.565 of 1999, dated 18.11.2022)

                     (Respondents 16 to 19 are brought on record as Lrs of the
                     deceased 6th respondent as per order of this Court made in
                     C.M.P(MD)Nos.1213 to 1215 of 2023 in A.S.No.565 of 1999,
                     dated 8.3.2023)



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                     4

                     PRAYER in A.S.No.564 of 1999: Appeal Suit filed under Section
                     96 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 70(2) of the Tamil Nadu
                     Hindu Religious and Endowments Act against the judgment and
                     decree made in O.S.No.408 of 1995, dated 21.9.1998, on the file of
                     Sub-Judge, Kulithalai.


                     PRAYER in A.S.No.565 of 1999: Appeal Suit filed under Section
                     96 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 70(2) of the Tamil Nadu
                     Hindu Religious and Endowments Act against the judgment and
                     decree made in O.S.No.600 of 1995, dated 21.9.1998, on the file of
                     Sub-Judge, Kulithalai.


                     A.S.No.564 of 1999


                                  For Appellant       :Mr.S.Raghavachari
                                                      Senior Counsel
                                                      for M/s.S.Ramesh

                                  For Respondent-1       :Mr.E.K.Kumaresan

                                  For Respondent-2       :Died

                                  For Respondent-3       :Mr.G.Mathavan

                                  For Respondent-4       :Mr.D.Sasikumar
                                                          Addl.Govt.Pleader

                                  For Respondents        :Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan
                                       5 to 8

                                  For Respondents        :Batta with Petition due
                                       9 to 14

                     A.S.No.565 of 1999

                                  For appellant          :Mr.S.Raghavachari
                                                          Senior Counsel
                                                         for M/s.S.Ramesh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                              5

                                       For Respondents            : Died
                                            1,6 and 14

                                       For Respondents            :Dismissed
                                            2 and 5
                                       For Respondent-3           :No appearance

                                       For Respondent-4           :Mr.A.N.Ramanathan

                                       For Respondent-7           :Mr.P.Mathavaselvam

                                       For Respondents            :M/s.Lakshmi Gopinathan
                                         8 to 11 and 15

                                       For Respondents            :Mr.M.Karunanithi
                                            16 to 19


                                                     COMMON JUDGMENT
                                                     ************************

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.408

of 1995 and O.S.No.600 of 1995, the present two appeal suits

came to be filed.

2.The suit in O.S.No.408 of 1995 is filed by the plaintiffs for

declaration and for other consequential reliefs declaring the second

defendant as not the hereditory trustee of Seelainaickempatti,

Thoppampatti, Sadayampatti, Thekamalai Ayyanar Temples. The

suit in O.S.No.600 of 1995 is filed on behalf of the temples by the

second defendant for recovery of possession of the temple

properties . The trial Court had disposed of both the suits by a

common judgment, dated 21.9.,1998, wherein, in the suit in

O.S.No.408 of 1995, the trial Court has declared that the plaintiffs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

in O.S.,No.408 of 1995 and the second defendant are the joint

trustees of the suit temples and they are in possession and

enjoyment of the respective portion of the properties, however,

dismissed the suit in O.S.No.600 of 1995 which is filed for recovery

of possession of the temple properties.

3.The brief facts leading to the filing of O.S.No.408 of 1995 is

as follows:

The suit is filed under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act(in short called as 'Act') to set aside the

order of the first defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that all

the temples are in Thappanaikikanpatti Village and

Annasamudreampatti Village in Manapparai Taluk. These temples

do not constitute having regard to the location, as one unit.

Originally, the second defendant's father filed an application under

Section 63(b) of the Act 22 of 1959 in respect of the temples as if

they constitute as one unit and obtained a decree of declaration on

31.1.1975 that he is the hereditory trustee coming within the

meaning of Section 6(11) and 63(b) of the Act. The above said

Order was obtained exparte. No publication whatsoever was made

before passing any order. Further, the order also does not indicate

whether there was any inspection conducted by the Inspector of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HR and CE Board. No person interested in the administration of the

temples was made as a party therein. After the death of the second

defendant's father, he has claimed to have inherited by way of

succession and has obtained declaration in O.A.No.178 of 1994.

Thereafter, the public at large are not allowed to have offer their

worship in the temple nor they are allowed to participate in the

temple festivals. No festivals are being conducted. Therefore suo -

motu proceedings initiated under Section 59(2) of the Act as

against the order passed in O.A.No.178/1994, is also dropped. A

third party one Karunaisamy Naicker and Kattuva Naicker had filed

an appeal under Section 69(1) of the Act, however, the said appeal

was also dismissed on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the matter

has been taken to Civil Court and the same is dismissed for default

on 5.8.1990. Therefore a suit has been filed challenging the order

of the first defendant on 29.4.1992. Hence a declaration is sought

for.

4.The averments in the Writtten statement, in brief, is as

follows:

The allegation that while passing the order in O.A.NO.178 of

1994, there was no wide publicity, is denied. Having failed to

succeed in the earlier round of litigation challenging the order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

passed in O.A.No.178 of 19994, now the suit has been filed with

false allegations. Therefore the plaintiffs are now estopped from

questioning the validity and enforcing the order passed in O.A.No.

178 of 1994. It is also denied that the order is obtained behind the

back of the public in general. It is the contention that the plaintiffs

father had already filed an appeal challenging the order passed by

the Joint Commissioner and the said appeal was dismissed.

Thereafter, he has also filed a suit in O.S.No.115/1978 and the

same was also dismissed. Therefore the present suit is barred by

the principle of resjudicata, besides the second defendant has also

already filed a suit in O.S.No.368 of 1998 seeking for permanent

injunction as against the plaintiffs.The said suit is not appealed.

Hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5.Based on the above pleadings the Trial Court has framed

the following issues:

1.Whether the order, dated 20.4.1992 is valid in law?

2.Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata?

3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declareation as prayed

for?

4.To what other relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6.The brief facts in the plaint in O.S.No.600 of 1995 is as

follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff, who is the second defendant in

O.S.No.408 of 1995 that the Appanna Naicker is the hereditory

trustee for the effective functioning of the temples and the

properties are in their possession and enjoyment. Appanna Naicker

is in the management of the temple and in possession of the

properties. Kist and tax also paid by him. About ten years back, the

defendants 1 to 6 and 7th defendant has made an attempt to

encroach upon the A and B schedule of properties respectively and

encroached upon the properties and they are in possession of the

properties. The properties are agricultural lands. Therefore

despite several attempts being made by the plaintiff to recover the

properties, the possession has not been handed over. Hence the

suit has been filed for the relief as stated supra.

7.The averments in the Written statement, in brief, reads as

follows:

Admittedly, the properties belong to the suit temple It is

denied by the defendants that the Appanna Naicker as the

hereditory trustee and he has no right whatsoever in the temples.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The allegation that the defendants have encroached upon the

temple properties is denied. They are in enjoyment of the

properties legally for several years. Hence prayed for dismissal of

the suit.

8.Based on the above pleadings, the issues framed in the suit

reads as follows:

1.Is it true that the properties are in possession of ancestors

of the defendants and whether they are in possession of the same?

2.To what other relief, the Plaintiffs are entitled to?

9.Common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.408 of 1995 and

on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A34 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the

second defendant in O.S.No.408 of 1995 is examined as D.W.1 and

Ex.B1 to Ex.B86 were marked.

10.The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.408 of 1995

declaring that both the plaintiffs and the second defendant are the

joint hereditory trustees and also held that the possession of the

properties with them and dismissed the suit filed in O.S.No.600 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1995 filed for recovery of possession. .Aggrieved over the same,

the present appeals came to be filed.

11.The learned counsel for the appellant in O.S.No.408 of

1995 mainly submitted that when the decision as to the

appointment of hereditory trustee has already reached its finality,,

which has not been challenged in time, the plaintiff contending

that other person who is in no way connected with the temples

filed a statutory suit, which is beyond the period of limitation. It is

the further contention that under Ex.B1, the Joint Commissioner

has already passed an order appointing the second defendant's

father as the hereditory trustee and the same has also reached its

finality. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.408 of 1995 has no right to

question the same. It is the further contention that the suit is also

filed challenging the orders passed by the authorities under the HR

and CE Act. It is also got dismissed. Therefore, the present suit is

bared by limitation, whereas, the learned counsel for the

respondents would submit that Ex.B1 is an exparte order that has

been passed merely on the basis of the application given by only

one person and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted with due

publication inviting objections from others. Merely because one

third party has filed a suit, which also got dismissed, the plea of

resjudicata cannot pressed into service as against the present

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appellant. It is the further allegation that the the appellant is in

possesison of the entire suit properties is also not corret. There are

30 acres of land which are in possession of four groups which is

also an admitted one. Hence it is the contention that the trial

Court finding is based on appreciation of evidence, has rightly

declared that the plaintiff and the second defendant as joint

hereditory trustees of the temples in question which does not

warrant any interference.

12.The learned counsel for the HRCE Board would submit

that the temples are now under the control of the fit person and

he is managing the affairs of the temples and the appellant in one

of the suit and other respondents are in possession of the

properties of the temples and they are declared as tresspassors

and necessary proceedings are also inititiated under Section 78 of

the Act for eviction of those persons who are squating over the

properties for all those years.

13.In the light of the above submissions, now the points that

arose for consideration in these appeals are as follows:

1.Whether the order, dated 31.1.1975 in O.A.No.178 of 1994

has reached its finality?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2.Whether the plaintiff and the second defendant are the

hereditory trustees of the suit temples?

3.Whether the same can be decided by the Civil Court in view

of the specific powers conferred to the Joint Commissioner/Deputy

Commissioner under Section 63 of the HR and CE Act?

4.To what other relief, the parties are entitled to?

14.Points 1 to 4:

The suit temples consists of seven temples and had owned

vast properties measuring to an extent of 30 acres of land. These

facts are not in dispute by both theparties. The main dispute among

the parties is claiming right over the management of the temples

whereas the plaintiff is on one side and the second defendant in

O.S.No.408 of 1995 is on the other side claiming right as

hereditory trustee to manage the suit temples. In that suit one

Appanna Naicker claims to be the hereditory trustee and the same

has been put to challlenge in the statutory suit filed by one

Kattuva Naicker and the same appears to have been dismissed for

default on 5.8.1980. These facts are also not in dispute. Further

who are all the plaintiffs who challenged the order passed by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Deputy Commissioner not placed before this Court. No document is

filed. The very dispute has emanted from the orders passed in

O.A.No.178 of 1994, dated 31.1.1975, which is marked as Ex.B1.

On a perusal of the same , it is seen that in respect of the seven suit

temples, an application has been filed by one Nalla Thoppa Naicker

and he is declared as the hereditory trustee of the above temples. It

is relevant to note that the order mainly based on the application

filed by the said Appanna Naicker. The order does not indicate

whether any proper enquiry has been conducted inviting objections

from the persons, who are interested in the affairs of the said

temples. On the basis of an application being filed by one particular

person, the application has been allowed appointing him as

hererditory trustee. On application, Nalla Thoppa Naicker himself

was decared as hereditory trustee of the suit temples on 31.1.1975.

The said order appears to have been challneged by one Kattu

Naicker. The said suit also got dismissed. Exercising the revisonal

powers, the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings and Ex.A2

suo-motu revisional order has proved the same. In the proceedings

initiated under Ex.B1, no one was made as respondent. However, it

appears that one Karunaisamy Naicker and Kattu Naicker as third

parties filed an appeal under Section 69(1) of the Act challenging

the order passed under Ex.B1 with delay of nine months. However,

the appellate authority has dismissed the delay application .

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thereafter, he seems to have filed a statutory suit under Section

70 before the Sub Court Karur in O.S.No.115 of 1978. The said suit

is also dismissed for default on 5.8.1980. Despite recording those

facts, suo motu revisional procededings has been dropped by the

Commissioner as could be seen from Ex.A2. Therefore from Ex.B1

and Ex.A2 pertaining to the appointment of the hereditory trustee,

it could be held that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted at the

time of appointing one Nalla Thoppa Naicker as Hereditory trustee,

who is said to be the father of the second defendat in O.S.No.408 of

1995. Therefore some third party who has challenged the said

proceedings is not before this Court and only other persons who

are interested in the suit temples and who are in enjoyment of

certain properties challenged the appointment of the hereditory

trustees, marked under Ex.B1. Therefore the said issue has not

been decided on merits and without the presence of the present

plaintiff in O.S.No.408 of 1995, the plea of resjudicata or estoppel

will not arise at all. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant in O.S.No.408 of 1995 cannot be countenanced.

15.As far as Ex.B1 appointment is concerned, only when

there was a dispute, the Joint Commissioner or Deputy

Commissioner is vested with the power to decide such issue and it

is relevant to extract the provision under Section 63 of the HR and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CE Act , which reads as follows:

''63.[Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to decide certain disputes and matters.—Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, 4[the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be], shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:—

(a) whether an institution is a religious institution ;

(b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee ;

(c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment ;

(d) whether any property or money is a specific endowment ;

(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution ; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter ;

(f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character; and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

religious or secular uses ; and

(g) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character, or the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious uses.''

16.A perusal of the above Section makes it clear that when

there is a dispute as to whether the trustee holds or hold office as

hereditory trustee, such dispute can be decided by the authorities,

whereas Ex.B1 and Ex.A2 makes it clear that mere on the sake of

an application filed by one particular person, he was declared as

hereditory trustee without there being any dispute among others.

17.Therefore though Ex.B1 is of the year 1975, declaring

that Appanna Naicker as hereditory trustee without there being

any dispute, without conducting proper enquiry and without giving

any opportunity to others who are also claiming such right in the

management of the temple, this Court is of the definite view that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the order passed under ExB1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Though the plaintiff in A.S.No.408 of 1995 claims to be the

hereditory trustee and similarly, the second defendant also

claiming right over the temples, however, no documents

whatsoever has been filed by them to show that prior to 1975, their

ancestors were in management and affairs of the suit temples and

that the trusteeship is hereditory in nature. Ex.A34, Inam Register

indicates that one Thekkamalai Ayyanar temple was in the

management of one Sadayan Ambalam, Kattu Naicker and 12

others. Ex.A34 Inam Register proves the fact that the temple was

under the control of the village people in general. Ex.A34 shows

that the Village Committee acts as a trustee in the temple. There is

no particular family or person shown as trustee. Ex.B66 proves

that patta was issued in the name of one Muthallamman Temple

and the revenue records stand in the name of the said temple.

However, in Ex.A5, name of one Ayyasamy was mentioned as

temporary trustee and agangal has also shown the nature of

cultivation. Ex.A34 and Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 show that the temples

and the properties were under the control of the Village

Committee. The plaintiffs are claiming to be the descendants of

Kattu Naicker. Other documents filed only show that the nature of

kist paid by the persons who are in the management of the temple

properties. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appellant in A.S.No.408/1995 that the appellant is in possession of

14 acres and the remaining lands are with others. This fact is not in

dispute.

18.Such being the position, when the earlier documents

show that all the properties are temple properties and Village

Committee was in the management of the temples, the Trial Court

declaring the Plaintiff and the second defendant as hereditory

trustees is also without any basis and it is relevant to note that if

there is any such dispute with regard to the trusteeship, the same

has to be separately dealt with under the HR and CE Act.The Joint

Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner vested with such power

should enquire such dispute under Section 63(1)(b) of the said Act.

Therefore,the trial Court declaring the plaintiffs and the second

defendant as joint trustees is also beyond the scope of the suit.

When the Civil Court is not given such power to decide the issue

and the specific powers were vested with the authorities under the

HR and CE Act, the same should have been dealt with by the said

authorities. The trial Court ought to have confined its decisions

with regard to the validity of Ex.B1, declaring the father of the

second defendant as hereditory trustee. However, the trial Court

has travelled beyond the scope of the suit and declared the

plaintiffs as well as the second defendant as trustees in the suit

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

temples. This Court is unable to accept the fining of the trial Court

in this regard granting declaration by declaring the plaintiff and

second defendant in O.S.No.408 of 1995 as trustees of the suit

temples and the same has necessarily to be set aside and

accordingly set aside.

19.It is now admitted by both sides that a fit person has been

apppointed by the HR and CE Department and he is in control of

the management and affairs of the suit temples.Now it is also

stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is not

disputed by others, that proceedings under Section 78 of the Act

has already been initiated by the authorities for the eviction of the

parties who are squating over the temple properties for years

together and the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order

under Section 78 in this regard. This fact is also not disputed by the

learned counsels appearing on either side. It is also relevant to

note that an affiavit has been filed by the Appanna Naicker/the

second defendant to the effect that he and the seventh respondent

had entered into a compromise and agreed to administer the suit

temples by mutual agreement and they have filed a petition to

record the compromise and they also stated in the affidavit that

they will file an application before the Joint Commissioner, Trichy

to form a Committee as per the statute for fixing fair rent for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

enjoying the temple properties. According to him, such

compromise has been entered between himself and the 7th

defendant( who is the first plaintiff in O.S.No.408 of 1995) in

respect of 26.5 acres of lands. The above affidavit makes it clear

that now the plaintiff and the 7th defendant in the suit has entered

into a secret arrangement between themselves in order to ignore

the second plaintiff. That itself creat some serious doubt about the

so called alleged compromise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined

to accept the said compromise. However, the said affidavit is taken

on record to show that they are willing to go before the

authorities for fixing the fair rent for the temple properties,

whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the HR and

CE Department that the proceedings also initiated under the

provisions of the said Act for evicting all those persons who are

squating on the temple properties ie., about 30 acres of land, who

are termed as encroachers. Such being the position, it is for the

authorities either to continue their proceedings under Section 78

of the Act or to regularize the lease by fixing the fair rent as per

law.

20.As this Court has held that the very order declaring one

person ie, the father ofthe second defendant in the suit as

hereditory trustee is not in accordance with law, the same is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

valid in the eye of law because the proeedings challenging the said

order also not reached its finality, on merits. In fact, the appeal

filed challenging the said order was also beyond the period of

limitation. Similarly the suit filed under Section 78 of the Act

challenging the said order is also dismissed for default. Since

those proceedings are not on merits, the order passed under Ex.B1

cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Similarly, the trial Court

finding that the plaintiff and the second defendant as hereditory

trustee is also set aside. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court

in O.S.No.408 of 1995. The dismissal of the suit filed for recovery of

possession by the second defendant in O.S.No.600 of 1995 is

confirmed.

21.As far as the hereditory trusteeship is concerned, the

Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner may initiate

proceedings, if the dispute still persists among the various persons

in respect of management of temples. Since the order passed

under Ex.B1 is set aside. The above said authorities are directed to

give opportunity to all the parties, who are all interested in the said

issue and decide the issue afresh and pass orders afresh, in

accordance with law. As far as the immovable properties ie., temple

lands which are in the possession and enjoyment of various

persons, it is stated that appropriate prceedings had already been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

initiated under Section 78 of the Act for eviction of the said persons

from the temple properties. It is for the authorities to proceed with

the process of eviction of the said encroachers or to regularize

their possession by fixing fair rent as per law. The same is left

open to the authorities to decide the same as per law. Accordingly,

all the points are answered.

22.In fine A.S.No.564 of 1999 is allowed by setting aside the

judgment and decree made in O.S.No.408 of 19955 declaraing the

plaintiffs and second defendant as hereditory trustee of the suit

temples and A.S.No.565 of 1999 is dismissed which is filed against

the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.600 of 1995 filed for

recovery of possession of the temple properties. No costs.

13.06.2023

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

NCC:Yes/No

vsn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1.The Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

vsn

COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN A.S.NOs.564 and 565 OF 1999

13.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis