Madras High Court
Andavar Koil Sami vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its on 30 March, 2023
S.A.No.815 of 2010
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.815 of 2010
1.Andavar Koil Sami
Paranam Village,
Rep. By its Managing Trustee-cum-
Possari Chandrahasa Padayachi,
Son of Velayudha Padayachi,
Residing at Paranam Village,
Chendurai Taluk.
2.Radhakrishnan
3.Nadesa Padayachi
4.Chellamuthu
5.Ramsamy ...Appellants
(Cause title accepted vide order of Court
dated made in M.P.No.1 of 2009)
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu rep by its
District Collector, Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Chendurai, Ariyalur District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Ariyalur made in
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
A.S.No.64 of 2001 dated 22.06.2006 in confirming the judgment and decree
of the learned Additional District Munsif of Ariyalur made in O.S.No.142 of
1996 dated 26.06.2001.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thamil Nidhi
Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.142 of 1996 on the file of the District
Munsif Court at Ariyalur are the appellants. The said suit had been filed for
a declaration that the suit schedule property belongs to the Andavar Koil
Swamy of Paranam Village and for a consequential injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit property.
2.The suit property in S.F.No.118 is an extent of 16.76 acres of
Paranam Village, Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District. There are two temples
situated in the said area namely, diety of Andavar Temple and Veeran
Temple. The consistent case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.254 of 2000,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
Paranam Andavar Veeran Kovil, is that the entire 16.76 acres is a
poromboke land. The said suit was decreed and the appeal was dismissed.
The second appeal in S.A.No.1276 of 2009 also came to be dismissed. In
the said Second Appeal, it has been held that the portions marked red and
blue should be enjoyed separately by the respective devotees without one
interfering with the rights of the other. However, the Andavar Kovil Swami
management was not satisfied and presented this suit, claiming declaration
of title.
3.According to them, by virtue of the Estate Abolition Act and the
Minor Inams Abolition Act, the property vest with them. In order to prove
their title, the only document that has been filed before the Court is the SLR
Register under Ex.A5. In this document, it has been reiterated by the
defendants / State authorities by showing the 'A' Register under which, it
has been shown as “Andavar Koil Poromboke”. In the absence of any title
deed or IFR or proceedings under the Estate Abolition Act and the Minor
Inams Abolition Act, this court cannot come to the conclusion that the
property vests with the Andavar Koil Swami Temple. The Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
dismissed the suit and the same has been confirmed in the first appeal in
A.S.No.64 of 2001 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge at Ariyalur.
4.Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.B.Thamil
Nidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
5.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the previous suit proceedings in O.S.No.38
of 1945 would show that the Temple has been in possession and enjoyment
for more than 80 years. He would also point out SLR and state that it is
Andavar Temple and the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for.
6.Mr.P.Thamil Nidhi, learned Additional Govenment Pleader
(Civil Side) would reiterate this contention stating that revenue record is not
a document of title and even in the revenue record , it only shows that the
land as poromboke land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
7.I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel
for the appellants and that of the respondents. I am unable to agree with the
vehement contentions of Mr.S.Parthasarathy. Apart apart from the SLR and
the Court decree, no other document has been filed in order to prove the title
of the Temple. A decree of the Civil Court does not create a right in a party
but only recognizes a right that already exists in the said person. Similarly,
the fact that the name of the appellant is found in the SLR does not change
the character of the SLR, being a revenue record. Revenue record is not a
document of title and therefore, I am constrained to confirm the findings of
the Courts below.
8.The learned Additional Government Pleader was requested by
the Court to find out if there will be any interference by the authorities with
respect to the functioning of Temple and property to an extent of 16.76
acres. He has got instructions from the Tahsildar, Chendurai Taluk to the
effect that as long as there is no law and order problem between the
devotees and the management of the Andavar Temple and that of the Veeran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
Temple, the said authorities would not interfere with their functioning. The
said report reads as follows:-
“ghh;itapy; fhQqk; fojj;jpy;
nfhug;gl;ljw;fpz';f. mhpaY}h; khtl;lk;. bre;Jiw tl;lk;.
guzk; fpuhk fzf;fpid ghprPyid bra;jjpy;. g[y
vz;/118y; 6/56/5 bcwf;nlh; muR g[wk;nghf;F vd
tifgLj;jg;gl;L. Fwpg;g[ fyj;jpy; Mz;lhs; nfhtpy; vd
“m” gjpntl;od; go cs;sJ/ fpuhk g[y vz;/118y; 6/56/5
bcwf;nlh; ,lj;jpw;Fs; Mz;lth; nfhapy; kw;Wk; tPud;
nfhapy; mike;Js;sJ/ nkw;go g[yj;jpy; mike;Js;s ,U
nfhapy;fisa[k; ,Ujug;gpdUk; jdpj;jdpahf jw;nghJ tiu
vt;tpj jila[kpd;wp tHpghL bra;J tUfpd;wdh;/ nkw;go
nfhtpy; cs;s jhth g[y vz;/118 MdJ muR g[wk;nghf;F
vd tifg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sjhy; mt;tplj;jpid bghWj;J
,Ujug;gpdUk; chpik nfhut[k; KoahJ nkYk; gl;lh
tH';ft[k; ,ayhJ/ nkYk;. ,Ujug;gpdUk; rl;lk; kw;Wk;
xG';F ghjpg;g[ VJk; Vw;glhJ tHpghL bra;ak
[ ; gl;rj;jpy;
nkw;go ,uz;L nfhtpy;fspYk; tHpghLfs; bra;a vt;tpj
jila[k; ,y;iy vd;gij md;g[ld;
bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/”
9.Recording the said report, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the decree in A.S.No.64 of 2001 dated 22.06.2006 on the file
of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur in confirming the judgment in O.S.No.142 of
1996 dated 26.06.2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
confirmed. The suit shall stand dismissed. The letter placed by the learned
Additional Government Pleader is recorded and shall form part of the
decree.
10.This Second Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
30.03.2023
kkn
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Nuetral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2010
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KKN
To:-
1.The Sub-ordinate Court,
Ariyalur.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Ariyalur.
S.A.No.815 of 2010
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
