[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Chandrasekar vs Arulmigu Marimman Kovil on 6 January, 2026
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.09.2025
Pronounced On : 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S.A.(MD)Nos.85, 86, 87 & 88 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.2078, 2079, 2081 and 2083 of 2025
Chandrasekar ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
( In S.A.(MD)No.85 of 2025 )
K.S.Kaleeswaran ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
( In S.A.(MD)No.86 of 2025 )
Saravanakumar ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
( In S.A.(MD)No.87 of 2025 )
T.Jeyabalan ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
( In S.A.(MD)No.88 of 2025 )
Vs.
Arulmigu Marimman Kovil, Sattur,
Represented through its,
Hereditary Trustee, P.Esakkimuthu,
... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
(In all Appeals)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
COMMON PRAYER:- Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of
Code of Civil Procedure, to allow this Second Appeal with costs by
setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024 in A.S.Nos.2,3,4
& 5 of 2023, passed by the Sub Court, Sattur, confirming the judgment
and decree of the trial Court in O.S.Nos.20, 14, 18 & 21 of 2020 on the
file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sattur,
dated 21.09.2022.
(In all Appeals)
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondent : Mr.C.S.Sri Ram
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.27 of
2004 O.S.Nos.20, 14, 18 & 21 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif
Cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sattur, challenging the judgment
and decree passed in A.S.Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 of 2023, passed by the Sub
Court, Sattur, dated 01.10.2024.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after
will be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
3. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Mariamman
Kovil, Sattur. The suit shops belonged to the said temple and also given
for rent to the defendants through the rental agreement. Since the suit
shops were constructed 100 years ago and were also in dilapidated
condition, the plaintiff's temple decided to construct new shops. Hence,
issued notices to the defendants under Section 106 of Transfer of
Property Act, to hand over the possession. Since there was no reply, after
the expiry of the period mentioned in the rental agreement, the plaintiff
filed RCOP.Nos.8, 3, 9 & 5 of 2017 before the District Munsif Court,
Sattur. In the said RCOPs, it was held that RCOPs were not maintainable
and only a suit is maintainable. Hence, the plaintiff filed separate suits in
O.S.Nos.20, 14, 18 & 21 of 2020 before the District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate Court No.1, Sattur, against the defendants for recovery of
possession. Thereafter, notice was issued to the defendants and the said
suits were contested by the appellants/defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
4. The brief averments made in the written statement are as
follows:-
The plea of the appellants/defendants is that the suits itself are not
maintainable and the respondent/plaintiff has not obtained permission
from HR & EC Department. The appellants/defendants specifically
pleaded that for making construction in the temple property, permission
should be obtained from the Authorities of the temple.
5. Based on the above said pleading, the trial Court has framed
the following issues:-
1.Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief of eviction
and for recovery of vacant possession?
2.Is the suit is barred by limitation?
3. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for?
6.1. In O.S.No.20 of 2020, before the trial Court on the side of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were
marked. On the side of the defendant, the first defendant was examined
as D.W.1 and no exhibit was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
6.2. In O.S.No.14 of 2020, before the trial Court, on the side of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were
marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as
D.W.1 and no exhibit was marked.
6.3. In O.S.No.21 of 2020, before the trial Court, on the side of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were
marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as
D.W.1 and no exhibit was marked.
6.4. In O.S.No.18 of 2020, before the trial Court on the side of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were
marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as
D.W.1 and no exhibit was marked.
7. After analyzing the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial
Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the
said judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal before the Sub
Court, Sivagangai, in A.S.Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 of 2023. The First Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
Judge dismissed the appeals by confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the Sub Court, Sattur, in O.S.Nos.20, 14, 18 & 21 of 2020,
dated 01.10.2024.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been preferred
by the defendants.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit
that both the Courts below failed to consider the specific plea that the
plaintiff has no right to file a suit without obtaining permission from HR
& EC Department for recovery of possession and for making
construction in the suit schedule property. The said aspect was not
considered by both the Courts below. Thereby, both the Courts below
committed error. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court of interfere in
the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.
10. After making his submission, he also raised a Substantial
Question of Law in the appeals. Even though, he raised the substantial
questions of law, at the time of admission, this Court admitted the Second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
Appeals on the following substantial question of law:-
i) Whether the suit for recovery of possession is
maintainable without obtaining permission from the
HR & EC Department against the appellants?
ii) Whether the claim of refund by the appellants
from the temple authorities for demolition is
maintainable?
11. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there
was no compliance under Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C., Accordingly when
they disputed the maintainability of the suit on the grounds that the
plaintiff has not obtained permission from the authorities of HR & EC
Department, the learned Appellate Judge should have framed the points
for determination.
12. This Court, to consider the said submission, perused the
records and also the judgment of the learned First Appellate Judge. The
learned First Appellate Judge, framed two points for determination. But,
he has not framed the point for determination relating to the above said
submission. But, he has made a detailed discussion on this aspect. Mere
omission on the point for determination is not fatal when there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
detailed discussion about the grounds raised by the appellants. This
Court finds no miscarriage of justice and failure of justice. Hence, this
Court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
13.The substantial question of law that the suit for recovery of
possession is not maintainable without obtaining permission from the HR
& CE department is already answered by the Hon'ble various Division
Bench of this Court including the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in
2023(2) LW 577 against the appellant. Therefore, in view of the law laid
down by this Court, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the
appellants that the suit is not maintainable. The respondent/plaintiff has
not claimed himself as trustee and he only represented the temple.
Further, in the earlier RCOP, there was no dispute about the locus standi
of the appellant was raised and the said RCOP was disposed of with
liberty to file a suit for recovery of possession. Hence, this Court finds no
merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
14. Only after recovering possession from the appellants, the
situation for obtaining permission from HR & CE department to
construct shops would arise. In the said circumstances, the plea of the
appellants that before filing the suit, the respondent/plaintiff must obtain
permission from HR & CE department to make construction is
misconceived one and this Court is unable to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. In view of the above, all
the questions of law framed by this Court is answered against the
appellants and both the Courts below correctly held that the suit is
maintainable and the temple authorities are entitled to seek possession.
Hence, this Court confirms the finding of both the Courts below and this
Court finds no merits in these second appeals and hence, this Court
inclines to dismiss all the second appeals.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants also filed undertaking
affidavits. Paragraph No.4 of the above said affidavit is as follows:-
“ I respectfully submit that if this Hon'ble Court is
not acepted my contentions it is very difficult for me to find
out alternative place for my business purposes immediately.
For shifting my shop to the suitable place, it will take some
more time. To give quietus in the issue I hereby undertake to
hand over the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff within
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
one year from the date of Judgment and decree of this
Hon'ble Court. If the temple authority is not proposed to
demolish and reconstruction of the building, I may be
permitted to continue to run my shop in the suit property. In
the event of the temple authority demolish and
reconsruction the building in the suit property I being a
loyal tenant without any arrears I may be given top priority
to accommodate a shop building in the proposed new
construction, I request this Hon'ble Court suitable
necessary direction may be given to the respondent /
Plaintiff to consider my request to the above aspect. To that
effect I am filing this undertaking affidavit and the same
may be recorded.”
16. Accordingly, these second appeals are dismissed with the
following directions:
i)The appellants are hereby directed to hand over the possession to
the temple authorities before 24.01.2027 and further directed to pay the
rent without any default.
ii)The petitioner's request to give priority is concerned, the temple
authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.01.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
Internet : Yes/No
dss
To
1.The Sub Court,
Sattur.
2. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Sattur.
3. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
S.A.(MD)Nos.85 to 88 of 2025
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
S.A.(MD)Nos.85, 86, 87 & 88 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.2078, 2079, 2081 and 2083 of 2025
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 07:54:58 pm )
