[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Dharmarajaaswamy Kovil ... vs Idol Of Arulmigu Dharmaraja Swamy, on 30 April, 2026
CRP No. 1099 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
15.04.2026 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP No. 1099 of 2022
and CMP.No.5661 of 2022
1. M/s.Dharmarajaaswamy Kovil Devasthabanam,
Rep by Managing Trustee J.Dhanalakshmi,
A Private Religious Trust of Family Temple,
D.No.42A and 45 Dharmaraka Kovil Stree,
Sennammanaickenpalayam, Idikari,
Coimbatore.
2. B.Jayachandran
S/o.Late D. Balasundaram,1057, Avinashi
Road, Coimbatore-18.
3. R.Parasuraman
S/o.Late Ramakrishnan, D.No.7/10A, Thergu
Thottam Paguthi, Kannammanayakkenpalayam,
Idikari, Coimbatore-18.
4. MythreyiPriya
W/o.ArunSelvaraj,
D/o.B.Jayachandran,68/73K,Green fields,
Puliyakulam Road, Puliyakulam,
Coimbatore-641 045
5. R.Paramanantham
S/o.Ramakrishnan,15, Dharmaraja Kovil Street,
Sennammanacikenpalayam, Idikarai,
Coimbatore.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Idol of Arulmigu Dharmaraja Swamy,
Of Sennammanaicken Palayam ,rep by Devotee
__________
Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1099 of 2022
V.Mohanraj S/o.S.K.Vijayan, 18,
Mettupalayam Road, Kavundampalayam,
Coimbatore-641 018.
2. R. Narayanasamy,
S/o.Late.Rajagopal, (Formerly the Managing
Trustee of M/s.Ponnammal Dharmarajasamy
Dharmasthabanam, D.No.2, Dhanalakshmi
Nagar, New Siddhapudu, Coimbatore - 641
004.
3. Ponnamma Dharmarajasamy,
Dharmasthabanam, Rep. by its Managing
Trustee, No.1057, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore - 18.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.524/2021 on the file of the I Additional
District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Parthasarathy
Senior counsel
for Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Kumaresan for R1
R2 - Died
R3 – Served – No appearance
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition filed to strike off the plaint in
O.S.No.524/2021 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court,
Coimbatore.
__________
Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for
Mr.Abishek Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
and Mr.S.Kumaresan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent.
3. Mr.R.Parthasarathy learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner’s would submit that the Dharmaraja Kovil Temple in
Semmanaickenpalayam, Idikari was built by one PonnammalW/o Nambur
Krishnaswamy out of her own funds and has all along been administered as a
private family temple, with no public contribution or participation in its
management. He would also submit that the trust deed dated 07.11.1954,
constituting “Ponnammal Dharmaraja Swamy Dharmasathanam,” establishes a
private religious endowment, with administration confined to trustees and funded
exclusively through endowed properties and their contributions. It does not
stipulate contributions from the public for managing the affairs of the temple or
for conducting rituals and festivals. There is no iota of any material in the trust
deed to give the colour of the trust being public in nature.
4. The learned Senior Counsel would also contended that after the demise
of Ponammal the trust was reconstituted. Mr.Balasubramaiam was appointed as
managing trustee and salaries to priest in temple and rituals were met out from
the income of said land , the above managing trustee executed the exchange deed
__________
Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 29-01-1973 registered document number 76/1973 to the adjacent land
owner for irrigation , it shows that the effective management by the trustee for
maintenance of the temple.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to the
insufficient funds to meet out the expenses of the temple, a trust deed has been
executed by the trustees, registered amendment deed dated 31-10-2019. Later the
conversion of private trust to public trust is out of scope of the trust deed of
Ponammal and therefore revoked the amendment deed dated 31.10.2019 ,
revocation deed dated 17.11.2020. The original private character of the trust
stood restored. He further contended that in order to meet out the expenses of the
temple trustees filed Trust O.P. 129/2020 in the District Court Coimbatore , to
sell about 8 acres of the trust lands but after the revocation of the amended deed,
the trustees had withdrawn Trust O.P. 129/2020.
6. Further Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that on 27-11-2020
a trust deed was entered between the Respondents and the petitioners trust. The
trust deed is to management of the religious affairs of the temple. The
petitioners had taken over the management of the trust , still remained as private
trust as per the trust deed. The said deed is not in violation of Trust deed dated
07-11-1954. He would also point out that the petitioner’s have instituted a suit in
O.S. No. 24/2021 in Additional District Munsiff Court-V, Coimbatore to declare
__________
Page4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Petitioners’ trust to be in administration of Dharamraja Kovil and the same was
decreed. The Respondents herein has instituted the suit in O.S. 524/2021 in
Principal District Munsif Coimbatore,for reliefs that to declare Judgment and
decree in O.S.No.24/2021, the Dharmaraja Kovil as public temple and to declare
the trust deed dated 27-11-2020 as null and void.
7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, the respondents
herein has no locus standi to file the suit , and cannot be an aggrieved person in
relation to the management of the trust and a mere averment that he is
worshipper of the idol of the temple will not ipso facto grant him the locus to
file the suit and hence suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold. He further
contended that the plaintiff does not contradicts the trust deed dated 07-11-
1954executed by the said Ponnammal, built and managed by her own funds and
the trust deed is clear and conclusive that only income from the landed properties
or contributions from trustees are utilized for managing the temple, in plaint
averments by respondent the prayer of temple is public in nature cannot be
granted.
8. Learned counsel also contended that the Provisions of Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 will not be applicable, since it is a private
trust, the petitioners’ of the private trust can act in consonance with the trust deed
and right to manage the temple including right to deal with the property has been
__________
Page5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
crystalized by virtue of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.24/2021. The nature
of the temple as a public can be decided by the authorities under section 63 of the
Act and therefore the present suit is barred by the provisions of HR & CE.
9. He would further submit that the 1 st Petitioner Trust has resolved on
01.04.2022 to dissolve the 1st Petitioner Trust based on deliberations made in the
minutes book of 3rd Respondent Trust. Consequently a resolution dated
01.04.2022 was passed unanimously to dissolve the 1st Petitioner Trust. However,
the same could not be brought to the attention of this Hon’ble Court since the
minutes book of the trusts were being maintained by erstwhile family charted
accountant. Subsequently the minutes books were requested and returned to the
possession of Petitioners only then the details recorded in the minute book of 3 rd
Respondent were brought to the knowledge of Petitioners. However, No effect
was ever given to the 1st Petitioner Trust and the duties pertaining to the
functioning of the temple was never transferred to the 1 st Petitioner Trust as
same was found to be in contravention to the objectives stated in Trust deed
dated 07.11.1954. Cause of action no longer survives
10. The plaint is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and relief sought is
in the nature of Section 92 of CPC, and is an attempt to circumvent the grant of
leave as required under law. On this ground alone the plaint is liable to be struck
off.
__________
Page6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners relying on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shipping Corporation of
India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers reported in (2004) 11 SCC 168, would contend
that Courts are vested with inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to strike off
proceedings which have become infructuous or which constitute an abuse of
process.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner’s further places reliance upon
the judgement made by this court in the case of Ramanasramam Rep. by its
Secretary v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments reported in AIR 1961 Mad 265, wherein this Court has elaborately
discussed the distinction between a private and a public religious trust.
13. Mr.S.Kumaresan Learned counsel for the respondents on the other
hand contends that, the respondents herein initiated the suit in O.S. 524/2021 to
set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.01.2021 passed in O.S. No. 24 of
2021 on the file of the learned Fifth Additional Munsif Court, Coimbatore. He
submits that Idol of Shri Dharmarja Swamy , represented by its devotee is a
public temple in existence for more than 150 years and maintained through
general public funds.
__________
Page7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. He would submit that one Late Mrs. Ponnammal, a devotee, had
contributed to the renovation of the temple and constructed a Mandapam
adjoining the Garbhagriha. She had also executed a Trust Deed dated
07.11.1954, registered as Document No. 730 of 1954, creating a Trust and
settling properties exclusively for the purpose of conducting poojas, rituals, and
maintenance of the temple said Trust Deed expressly prohibits alienation or
encumbrance of Trust properties. After the demise of the founder in 1958, the
Trust became defunct over time. For more than five decades, no activities were
carried out, and the trustees failed to discharge their obligations.All trustees
eventually passed away without reconstitution, thereby rendering the Trust non-
functional.
15. He would further contended that without any lawful authority, The
above said petitioners 2 and 3 and along with another, have falsely projected
themselves as trustees of the said Trust. It is contended that they have fabricated
recordsand trust documents that were in the custody of the last Managing
Trustee, Late Mr. Balasundaram. The Respondent has also denied and refuted the
locus standi and representative capacity of Petitioner’s, contending that in the
absence of lawful reconstitution after the demise of all the trustees, they cannot
assume the role of trustees. The Respondent further alleges that the Petitioners,
acting in collusion, attempted to usurp the Trust properties, which are stated to
be worth more than Rs. 50 crores, and initiated proceedings in O.P. No. 129 of
__________
Page8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2020 before the Principal District Court seeking permission to deal with Trust
properties.
16. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that the subsequent
institution of O.S. No. 24 of 2021 and Judgment and Decree dated 25.01.2021
passed by Honourable 5th Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore to be set
aside and declare Arulmigu Dharmaraja Swamy Temple as Public Temple.
17. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent further relied upon
the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement made in the case of Bishwanath and
Another v. Thakur Radha Ballabhji and Others, which dealt with legal
principles governing the rights of worshippers and the juristic status of idols. It is
submitted that, as held therein, three foundational legal principles stand well
established, namely:
(i) that an idol in a Hindu temple is a juridical person capable of holding
property;
(ii) that ordinarily the She bait alone is entitled to represent the idol; and
(iii) that the worshippers of the idol are its beneficiaries, albeit in a
spiritual sense.
18. He also relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement made in the
case of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia reported in 2025 SCC
__________
Page9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OnLine SC 1208, wherein it has been held that the position of law is that
rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the
plaint, on its face and without considering the defence, fails to disclose a cause
of action, is barred by any law, is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At
this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to
the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of
the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be
summarily rejected.
19. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent further relied upon
the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement made in the case of K.Valarmathi and
Others vs Kumaresan 2025 INSC 606 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of P.Suresh vs D.Kalaivani and others reported in
2026 INSC 121 to contend that the High Court should be slow in exercising its
power under Article 227 of the constitution to strike of the plaint as it would
efface the statutory remedy available to the plaintiff under CPC. Hence, he prays
for dismissal.
20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. Even though contentious arguments were made before this Court with
regard to the maintainability of the suit, it is the duty of the Court to look at the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court which had been relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to deal with the power of the
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint. In the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2025 INSC 606, the Hon’ble
Apex Court had categorically held that the Civil Procedure Code is a self
contained Code wherein power had been vested under Order VII Rule 11 to
reject a plaint and that such rejection amounts to a decree which is appealable
under Section 96 and it had further held that such a statutory claim under the Act
cannot be upended in invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of the plaint. For better
appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“ 9. Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it
cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court
which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a
statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 19085. For
example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code
operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 2276.
__________
Page11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII
Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court
may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which
is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code.
This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer
for rejection of plaint...”
22. In the judgment reported in 2026 INSC 121, the Hon’ble Apex Court
had held that availability of alternative remedy under CPC shall be treated as
complete and near total bar on the High Court to exercise its power under Article
227 of the Constitution. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereunder:-
“ 7. When the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are of
supervisory nature and when the aforestated settled dictum of law is that the
High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error, it would
logically follow that the powers under Article 227 would not be exercised
when the non-exercise of such powers does not result into miscarriage of
justice or deprivation of remedy in law to a party.
7.1 It is to be conceived as one of the prohibited area for exercising Article
227 powers where, in respect of the grievance for which party has remedy
__________
Page12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in law, these powers are surely to be invoked. The principle is therefore to
be emphasized that the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution has to be treated as an exceptional resort when an
alternative efficacious civil remedy by way of appeal or revision or any
other, like Order VII Rule 11, CPC in the present case, is available to the
party for the redressal of the grievance.
7.2 The proposition that the availability of alternative remedy shall be
legitimately construed to displace the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction
by the High Court, is true not only for the purpose of exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution but also for the purpose of invoking
Article 227 of the Constitution.
7.3 In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the specific
statutory remedy or provision in law and, thus, become a supervisor over
the court below or the tribunal, as the case may be. It would be a legally
wise exercise of discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such
self-imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should take
recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law,
especially, for the case falling in category indicated in Virudhunagar6
(supra) where remedy available in the CPC for the cases falling under
category/other law also, where such specific statutory remedy is available,
__________
Page13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the dictum laid down herein is true to grant extent.
7.4 As stated above, embargo in this regard would have to be construed as
near total when provision is available in CPC. It is held, therefore, that
once the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is
available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to
reject or strike off the plaint. For such relief, the specific provision under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the grounds
mentioned in the said provision.
8. In adopting such approach, the High Court would be giving due regard
to the legislative intent. When the legislature has enacted specific remedial
provision to be taken recourse to by the person aggrieved to challenge the
orders and decisions of the court to seek redress in law accordingly that
remedy alone will have to be sought for.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it would logically follow that the High
Court would not only discourage but desist from exercising jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of a challenge for which a
separate, distinct, and specific remedy or statutory provision is available
under the statute concerned. Availability of an alternative civil remedy
and/or under the CPC shall be treated as complete and near total bar on
the High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its power available under
__________
Page14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Article 227 of the Constitution, except where exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary.”
23.In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is refraining itself from
entertaining the present Revision, however, is of the view that the petitioner
would be at liberty to invoke the Provisions of Order VII Rule 11 to strike off the
plaint.
24. With the aforesaid liberty, the Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently the connected Miscellaneous petition stands closed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
30.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
To
1.The Additional District Munsif Court-I,
Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
30.04.2026
__________
Page16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
