Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

P.Kasi vs Vilvaraj
2025 Latest Caselaw 5918 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5918 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2025

Madras High Court

P.Kasi vs Vilvaraj on 9 April, 2025

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
                                                                                          SA No. 280 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 09-04-2025

                                                            CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                      SA No. 280 of 2025
                P.Kasi
                                                                                          Appellant(s)

                                                                 Vs

                1. Vilvaraj
                2. Sekar
                3. Rajini
                4. Kuttaiyan @ Chinnan
                5. Sanjai Gandhi
                                                                                          Respondent(s)


                PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code,

                praying to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 23.01.2013 in AS No.70 of

                2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Ordinate Court at Salem confirming the

                Judgement and Decree of the I Additional District Munsif Salem dated

                26.10.2010 made in OS NO.792 of 2008.


                                  For Appellant(s):       Ms. S. Vasavi Sridevi

                                  For Respondent(s):      Mr.M.Ganesh
                                                          For R1 To R3 And R5



                1/5



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 05:37:13 pm )
                                                                                              SA No. 280 of 2025




                                                            JUDGMENT

Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in

A.S.No.70 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Court, Salem arising out of trial

court findings rendered in O.S.No.792 of 2008 on the file of I Addl. District

Munsif Court, Salem, this Second Appeal was preferred by the

appellant/plaintiff.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking

in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the

management and administration of the suit temple and also restraining them

from any way collecting funds and donation from the public for the suit temple

against the defendants 1 to 5. According to the plaintiff, in the suit temple viz.

Arulmigu Mariamman Koil, he is the hereditary Dharmakartha and he is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 05:37:13 pm )

managing as well as administering the said temple, in which, the defendants

caused interference. Hence, he come forward with the present suit. The

defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and strongly disputed

the plea of Dharmakartha claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the burden is

casted upon the plaintiff to prove that he is the Dharmakartha of the suit temple.

Except the plaintiff's oral evidence, there is no material evidence adduced on his

side. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff has not

proved his claim as he is the Dharmakartha of the suit temple. Against which,

the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2012, wherein the first

appellate judge on analysing the facts as well as evidence on record, finally

dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of trial court holding that the

plaintiff was not aware of entire affairs of the temple, however, he was one of

the members of the Committee, which was formed to construct the temple,

except that, there is no other evidence to show that he is the Dharmakartha of

the temple.

4. Heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant

and perused the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 05:37:13 pm )

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, it reveals the fact that when a

person claiming hereditary Dharmakartha, the same has to be proved with

material evidence, but except his evidence, there is no material evidence

adduced on his side. Therefore, both the courts below rightly held that the

plaintiff not proved his claim, which needs no interference of this Court. Hence,

this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed, since there is no question of law is

involved for consideration. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as no

merit and the findings rendered by the first appellate court in A.S.No. 70 of

2012 is confirmed and consequently, suit is dismissed. No costs.

09-04-2025 rpp Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1. Principal Sub Ordinate Court, Salem

2. I Additional District Munsif, Salem.

3. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 05:37:13 pm )

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp

09-04-2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 05:37:13 pm )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter