[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.Raja Subramanian vs K.Varadarajan on 30 April, 2026
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 20.04.2026
Delivered on : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)Nos.12177 of 2024 & 6698 of 2025
SA(MD). No.371 of 2024:
1. P.Raja Subramanian,
S.Daniel (died)
P.Thangavel (died)
2. R.Balachandran,
D.Robert (died)
3. M.Nallaiah,
4. N.Thangavel,
A.Balan (died)
5. S.Govindan,
6. G.Elangovan,
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
7. Kalaiarasan,
R.Velusamy (died)
8. V.Paranjothi,
9. N.Paramasivam,
10. G.Gunasekaran,
11. S.Samuvel(Died),
V.Mookkan alias Mukesh Kanna
Dr.O.Natesan (died)
12. R.Gunaselvan, .. Appellants / Appellants /
Plaintiffs 1,3,5-10,12,15,17,19,21-25,27
Vs.
1. K.Varadarajan,
M.Arumugam (died)
Gunalan (died)
2. R.Murugesan,
3. K.Christdoss,
4.St.John's Sangam Trust
having office at Rover College,
Permabalur.
5. A.Annadurai, ... Respondents / Respondents /
Defendants 1,2,4,5,7 & 8
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
PRAYER :- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, to allow this appeal , setting aside the decree and judgment passed
by the learned IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Triuchirappalli in
A.S.No.20/2008 dated 31-08-2023, confirming the decree in full and the
judgment in part as regards the question of membership of the plaintiffs
of O.S.No.973/1990 and reversing the judgment in part as regards the
question of dissolution of the St.John sangam (Registration No.16/1961)
Pass by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli in O.S.No.
973/1990 dated 16-04-2007 and decreeing the Original suit as prayed for
with costs throughout.
SA(MD). No.715 of 2024 :
1. S.Thangaraj,
2. K.Dhanaraj, ... Appellants / Appellants / Plaintiffs 1 & 2
Vs.
1. K.Varadarajan,
M.Arumugam (Died)
T.G.P.Gunalan (Died)
2. R.Murugesan,
3. K.Christdoss,
3/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
4. P.Muthusamy,
5. A.Muthaiyan
6. K.Ramasamy
7. K.Ayyamperumal,
S.Gopalsamy (Died).
8. M.Chandrahasan,
9. K.Murugesan
S.Gunaseelan (Died)
S.Mannathi (Died)
10. S.T.Selvaraj,
11. S.Anbhazagan
P.Rajendran (Died).
12. St. John's Sangam,
Perambalur, Represented by its Self
Styled Secretary,
K.Varadarajan,
Rover Campus,
Perambalur.
13. St. John's Sangam Trust,,
Rover Campus,
Perambalur 621 212. ... Respondents / Respondents /
Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-21
4/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
PRAYER :- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, to allow this appeal , setting aside the decree and judgment passed
by the learned IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Triuchirappalli in
A.S.No.33/2008 dated 31-08-2023, confirming the decree in full and the
judgment in part as regards the question of membership of the plaintiffs
of O.S.No.976/1990 and reversing the judgment in part as regards the
question of dissolution of the St.John sangam (Registration No.16/1961)
Pass by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli in O.S.No.
976/1990 dated 16-04-2007 and decreeing the Original suit as prayed for
with costs throughout.
(In both Second Appeals)
For Appellants : Mr.J.Arumainayagam
For Respondents : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar for R1 and R4
: Mr.J.Madhu for R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.973 of 1990 before the District Munsif
Court, Trichy, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the trial
Court as well as the first appellate Court, are the appellants in S.A.
(MD)No.371 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.976 of 1990 before the District Munsif
Court, Trichy, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the trial
Court as well as the first appellate Court, are the appellants in S.A.
(MD)No.715 of 2024.
3. Considering the fact that the appeals are arising out of common
cause, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals
had been heard together.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their rank before the trial Court.
5. I have heard Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the
appellants in both the appeals and Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, for
Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents
in both the appeals, viz., respondents 1 to 4 in SA(MD)No.371 of 2024
and respondents 1, 12 and 13 in SA(MD)No.715 of 2024 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
Mr.J.Madhu, learned counsel for the second respondent in both the
appeals.
6. The Second Appeals were admitted on 07.04.2026 on the
following substantial question of law:
“ Whether the resolution of the Sangam, passed in
the absence of a special resolution, is valid under
Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,
1975?”
7. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeals are
as hereunder:
O.S.No.973 of 1990 came to be filed by as many as 28 plaintiffs,
claiming to be members of a registered Society, viz.,St. John Sangam,
having its Head Quarters at Perambalur. The plaintiffs sought for a relief
of declaration that the plaintiffs are members of the said Society /Sangam
and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendants from
preventing the plaintiffs from functioning as members of the said
Sangam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
8. O.S.No.976 of 1990 was originally filed by some of the
plaintiffs originally before the District Munsif Court at Perambalur, in
O.S.No.817 of 1989. The plaintiffs therein sought for relief of
declaration that the defendants 8 to 19 in the said suit are not members of
said St. John Sangam, and for consequential injunction to restrain the
defendants from acting as members of the said Sangam and also for a
similar declaration regarding defendants 1 to 7 as well, however,
restricting it to the managing committee of St. John Sangam.
9. The suits were resisted by the defendants, contending that
though the plaintiffs 1 to 18 had been originally initiated as members in
the Society, but subsequently, they have been removed in terms of
resolution passed by the Sangam. Insofar as the plaintiffs 19 to 28, the
defendants contended that these plaintiffs were never members of the
Sangam at any point of time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
10. With regard to O.S.No.976 of 1990 (O.S.No.817 of 1989), the
defendants resisted the suit reliefs contending that admittedly the
plaintiffs are members of the Sangam. However, the plaintiffs have
colluded with the plaintiffs in O.S.No.973 of 1990 and hence, the
plaintiffs have lost their membership from their Sangam and they are not
members as on the date of filing of the suit. The allegation regarding
misappropriation of funds and other unlawful activities have been stoutly
denied by the defendants. The suit was transferred to the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli and O.S.No.817 of 1949,
re-numbered as O.S.No.976 of 1990 and both the suits were tried
together and disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated
16.04.2007.
11. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, nine
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 18 documents were
marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A18. On the side of the defendants, two
witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and 182 documents were
marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B182.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
12. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed both the suits. Aggrieved by
the same, two appeals came to be filed in A.S.Nos.20 and 33 of 2008 on
the file of the IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The
first appellate Court, in and by common judgment dated 31.08.2023,
dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree of the
trial Court.
13. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well
as the first appellate Court, these second appeals have been filed.
CMP(MD)No.6698 of 2025:
14. Pending the second appeal, the appellants have also filed this
application seeking to place additional evidence invoking under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
15. According to the petitioners, these documents are necessary for
decision in the second appeal. It is also stated that even before the first
appellate Court these documents were marked in I.A.No.536 of 2018,
which was a receiver application. The learned counsel would therefore
state that no prejudice would be caused, if these documents are received
as additional evidence.
16. To this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, a counter affidavit has
been filed, stating that the documents are irrelevant and they were not
produced before the Courts below.
17. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
I find that the appellants have not satisfied the mandate of Order 41 Rule
27 CPC. No explanation has been given for not marking these documents
before the Courts below. In fact, the petitioners themselves admit that
these documents were marked in I.A.No.536 of 2018 before the first
appellate Court. In such circumstances, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
invoked at this stage. Further, considering the substantial question of
law framed, these documents are not going to be any assistance to this
Court as well. Hence, C.M.P.(MD)No.6698 of 2025 is dismissed.
18. Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants would
firstly contend that St.John Sangam was originally formed by a German
missionary for the purpose of setting up an orphanage for poor boys and
to provide not only basic education but also education at the highest level
for the orphanage children. According to Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned
counsel for the appellant, management of the Sangam fell into the wrong
hands of the first defendant, K. Varadarajan, who gradually gained
control over the affairs of the Sangam and also managed to become its
Secretary. Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants
would contend that the said Varadarajan acting arbitrarily and guided by
his own whims and fancies, went to the extent of attempting to dissolve
the Sangam during the pendency of the suits. However, the District
Registrar directed the first defendant to re-instate all the members and
conduct for elections. Though the same was challenged by the defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
by way of writ petition, the Writ Court quashed the direction of the
District Registrar to conduct fresh elections, however, confirmed the
order of the reinstatement of the removed members. In pursuance of the
same, according to Mr.J.Arumainayagam, O.S.No.817 of 1989 came to
be filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 28, who sought for re-instatement, being
part of total 126 members. Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the
appellants would further state that the trial court had also granted an
interim stay initially restraining Varadharajan from acting as Secretary.
The suit was however transferred to the Principal District Munsif Court,
Trichirappalli, pursuant to the orders of the District Court to be tried
along with O.S.No.973 of 1990.
19. Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants
inviting my attention to Ex.A3 would contend that the meeting held on
16.06.1989 was called for only with the Agenda of General
Administration of the Sangam, discussion and decision regarding
resolution for all of the Managing committee of the Sanagam dated
13.05.1989 (Ex.B12) to decide adult education and the implementation
of 30 centres, and any other matter brought before the General Body.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
Referring to Ex.A3, according to Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel
for the appellants would state that the said resolution did not even
whisper about any election to be conducted. He invited my attention to
Section 26(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,
contended that notice was mandatory before conduct of elections and in
the absence of even an Agenda in Ex.A3, the first defendant's actions
were highly illegal, arbitrary and without the force of law. He would
further state that the defendants have vaguely pleaded in the written
statement that the elections were conducted properly and there has been
no violation without meeting the serious allegations that have been made,
exposing the illegal acts of the first defendant in conduct of the elections.
The same arguments were also advanced insofar as the dissolution of
Sangam, without any due process. He would also state that the Sangam
had valuable immovable properties and no decision was taken with
regard to the transfer of immovable properties belonging to the Sangam
as well. He would therefore state that the dissolution itself is per se
illegal and void and the plaintiffs are consequently entitled to the prayers
sought for in the respective suits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
20. Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants
further invite my attention to bye-law 14(c) which prohibits the
revocation of the Sangam and would contend that when the bye-law
specifically makes the Sangam irrevocable, its dissolution was itself
impermissible. He would further state that required quorum is also not
there for passing the resolution. Referring to Section 41(4) of the
Societies Registration Act, Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the
appellants would state that admittedly the Sangam is receiving funds
from both the Central Government and the State Government and
without prior consent of the appropriate Government, the Sangam ought
not to have been dissolved.
21. He would also rely on Section 17 of the Registration Act to
fortify his arguments that the immovable properties belonging to the
Sangam could not have been transferred without a registered instrument
in place. He would also attack the judgment of the first appellate Court
on the ground that without even reference to Ex.A3, which was the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
foundation of the case of the first defendant for removal of the members
and also dissolution of the Sangam, the first appellate Court has
proceeded to non suit the plaintiffs merely based on assumption and
presumptions ignoring material evidence brought on record. He would
also attack the findings of the first appellate Court, as being opposed to
Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well.
Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants would also refer
to the relevant portions of the evidence adduced by the first
defendant/Varadarajan and contend that he had admitted to the fact that
the writ petition was allowed holding that the District Registrar did not
have power to conduct elections. The learned counsel would therefore
state that the Courts below have totally lost sight of the statutory
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, in dismissing
the suits and the Courts below have given a seal of approval to the high
handed acts, financial irregularities committed by the defendants,
especially, the first defendant. He would therefore pray for the second
appeals being allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
22. Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants has
relied upon the following decisions:
1. Judgment of this Court in Vallivalam Desikar Polytechnic
Educational Society, Nagapattinam v. The Registrar, reported in
2012-3-LW-532
2. Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Chief Controlling
Revenue v. H.Narasimhaiah, reported in 1991-192-ITR-708 KAR
23. Per contra, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents in both appeals would point out to the reliefs
sought for in both the suits and contend that without challenging the
removal of the plaintiffs, through appropriate relief, the suits as framed
were not maintainable in the eye of law. He would further state that the
suit is also barred for non-joinder of the Society in the first place.
Though the plaint was subsequently amended, Mr.V.Meenakshi
Sundaram, learned counsel would state that at the relevant point of time,
when the Society was made a party, the Society itself was not in an
existence. Pointing out the by-laws, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
contend that there was no impediment for winding up the Society and the
reliance on bye-law 14(c) was wholly misplaced and misconceived. He
would also state that the resolution in and by which the plaintiffs 1 to 18
were removed and the Society /Sangam was also dissolved have not been
challenged. On the other hand, they have been accepted and acted upon.
24. He would point out to the fact that except some of the
plaintiffs, who were Christians, all other plaintiffs are Hindus and they
had locus in terms of by-law 2(c), which mandates members are required
to be of Christian faith. Pointing out to the relief sought for in O.S.No.
976 of 1990, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, would contend that the reliefs
have been couched in a negative form and without adducing any
evidence or proof, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. He would
further state that subsequent to dissolution of Sangam, Trust also be
formed and the Trust has taken over the assets and liabilities of the
Sangam and it's functioning, carrying out various laudable objectives and
hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suits, especially, as
instituted with the above referred reliefs alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
25. Insofar as the plaintiffs 19 to 28, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram,
learned counsel for the contesting respondents would contend that they
have not let in any evidence as to how they were inducted as members or
are continuing to be lawful members of the Sangam. He would therefore
contend that the plaintiffs 19 to 28 also have failed to prove their
entitlement to the relief of being declared as members of the Sangam. He
would further state that proper procedure was followed before removal of
the members and show cause notices were issued and receipts were also
been admitted by the plaintiffs themselves and necessary proof has been
adduced before the trial Court. The learned counsel would further state
that despite amending the plaint, the plaintiffs never choose to challenge
the resolution or dissolution of Sangam and belatedly after a lapse of 10
years, complaint was made in 2004, that too, by a formerl member,
challenging the dissolution. However, the District Registrar rejected the
same under Ex.B.158, which was also confirmed in Ex.B.173. The said
orders have not been challenged, though passed way back in the year
1994 and 2004. He would further state that without challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
election, the second suit in O.S.No.976 of 1990 seeking a negative prayer
is also not maintainable and the plaintiffs therein have not even
established as to how the defendants are disqualified from being part of
the Managing Committee. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the
second appeals, contending that no substantial question of law arises for
consideration.
26. I have applied my mind carefully to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the
judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court as
well as carefully perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties.
27. Firstly, even before addressing the substantial question of law
framed by me, on a prima facie hearing of the second appeals for
admission, I find force in the submissions made by Mr.V.Meenakshi
sundaram, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that the suits
as framed without a challenge to the resolutions or the dissolution of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
Sangam cannot be successfully maintained in the eye of law. It is not as
if the plaintiffs were unaware of the resolutions passed, removing some
of the plaintiffs from the membership of the Society and also subsequent
dissolution of the Sangam as well. Despite having chosen to amend the
plaint, pending trial, the plaintiffs have not even attempted to challenge
the resolutions, elections and the consequent dissolution of the Sangam
as well. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, in this regard,
have rightly come to the conclusion that despite an additional written
statement being filed that the suit reliefs had become infructuous, the
plaintiffs have not challenged the dissolution of the Sangam and there
was no scope even for moulding the relief in favour of the plaintiffs.
Since the plaintiffs 1 to 18 have miserably failed to prove that they had
been removed from membership, without following due process of law,
the Courts below had rightly appreciated the admissions of the plaintiffs
in cross examination as well as documentary evidence adduced on the
side of the defendants to satisfy that all was well with the procedure
adopted and there was no violation of the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
28. Eventhough it has been forcibly contended and argued by
Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants, the defendants
acted in violation of the principles of natural justice and deprived the
plaintiffs of a fair opportunity to be heard before their removal and the
Sangam was dissolved, from the evidence on record, the Courts below
have non suited the plaintiffs finding that due process of law was
followed and the members were put on notice. Such concurrent findings
of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeals in exercise of power
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
29. Insofar as the plaintiffs 19 to 28 as well, the Courts below have
concurrently found from the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that, they
have failed to establish that they have been members at any point of time
and on such failure, they were not entitled to the relief sought for in the
suit. The first appellate Court, has also independently tested... the
findings of the trial Court, based on the pleadings as well as the oral and
documentary evidence available on record and concurred with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
findings of the trial Court, I do not see any mis reading of pleadings and
evidence brought on record by the parties or even failure to address a
legal questions that arose for consideration in the suit. Hence, there is
absolutely no scope for interference under Section 100 CPC. The
question of law framed at the time of admission regarding absence of
passing special resolution under Section 40 (c) of the Tamil Nadu
Societies Registration Act, 1975, does not even arise in the facts of the
present case, in view of the afore-stated detailed discussion. Even with
regard to the writ petition, on which strong reliance has been placed by
the learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed in the writ
petition has been marked as Ex.B.56. From the order copy, which has
been marked Ex.B56, I find that this Court, on the writ side, disposed of
the writ petition by observing that under the Societies Registration Act,
1975, there is no power for the first respondent to order election to be
conduced and since the District Registrar had ordered election, on that
simple ground alone, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned
order was set aside. I do not see any direction issued by this Court in the
said writ petition, directing re-instatemnet of the members removed. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
fact, the plaintiffs fall back only on the order of the Writ Court to seek re-
instatment of their membership. In the absence of any such specific
direction by the Writ Court and even the plaintiffs themselves have not
challenged the removal, I do not see how the relief sought in the suits can
be maintained, let alone be granted to the plaintiffs as prayed for.
30. Insofar as the decisions that have been relied on by
Mr.J.Arumainayagam, learned counsel for the appellants, in Vallivalam
Desikar Polytechnic Educational Society's case, this Court held that
there are four different methods by which a society registered under the
Act can cease to exist and that till the affairs of the society are wound up
and the society is dissolved, the society continues to be in existence, even
if its registration is cancelled. This Court also held that any person
aggrieved by the cancellation of registration of Society is entitled to file
an appeal under Section 45(1)(b), but, as against an order striking of the
name of the Society being registered, any person cannot file an appeal. I
do not see how the decision would can be applied in favour of the
appellants. As I have already discussed, the plaintiffs have not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
challenged the resolutions, elections and consequently, dissolution of
Sangam. In such circumstances, the order passed by this Court in a
revision petition arising under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
which was on an entirely different factual matrix cannot be applied to the
facts on hand.
31. Coming to the decision of the Full Bench of the Karnataka
High Court, in Chief Controlling Revenue's case, the Court referring to
Section 14 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, held that
there is no provision in the Act to change the character of the society to a
trust and further such transaction would amount to a transfer of the
property, thereby attracting higher stamp duty as well, That was a case
where the question before the High Court was with regard to stamp duty
that is payable for the declaration of the Trust. In such circumstances, the
decision was rendered. In the instant case, none of these issues arise,
since the plaintiffs have not challenged the dissolution or even the
consequent formation of the Trust and transfer of properties from the
Society to the Trust. Further, the plaintiffs 1 to 18 have been removed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
and the removal has not been challenged and the remaining plaintiffs
have not established that they were members. Therefore, this decision
also will not come to the aid of the appellants/plaintiffs.
32. The Courts below have considered and appreciated the
pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the legal position with regard
to the Trust/ Societies and rightly held that the plaintiffs were disentitled
to any of the suit reliefs. I do not see any grounds arising any interference
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no merit in
these second appeals.
33. In fine, these second appeals are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected CMP(MD)No.12177 of 2024
is closed. C.M.P.(MD)No.6698 of 2025 is dismissed.
30.04.2026
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
To
1.The IV Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD). Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
P.B.BALAJI,J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgments made in
SA(MD) Nos.371 and 715 of 2024
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
