Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
P.K. Vasudevan Pillai & Others
Versus
Manikandan Nair & Others
SECOND APPEAL (MD) No.305 of 2004 & CMP (MD) Nos.1526 of 2004, 894 & 4206 of 2005 & Contempt Petition No.22 of 2005 & W.P.No.1727 of 2005
Decided On :Decided On : 02-12-2010
JURISDICTION - PRIVATE TEMPLE - TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 - [S.A.No.305 of 2004] - The court held that the suit was barred in view of Section 63(a) read with Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The court also found that the findings on whether the temple was a public or private temple were of no consequence due to the lack of jurisdiction. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court was found to be in conformity with the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC.
Fact of the Case:
One Mr.Parameswaran Pillai and Damodaran Pillai filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of 1994, praying for a declaration of their right to administer a temple known as 'Badrakaliamman Temple' and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the temple and the properties. The Trial Court dismissed all the three suits. The Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, dismissed both the appeals. Therefore, the fourth plaintiff and the seventh defendant in O.S.No.121 of 1994 alone have come up with the above Second Appeal, challenging the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.121 of 1994 by both the Courts below.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred in view of Section 63(a) read with Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The court also found that the findings on whether the temple was a public or private temple were of no consequence due to the lack of jurisdiction. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court was found to be in conformity with the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit was barred in view of Section 63(a) read with Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and whether the temple was a public or private temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred in view of Section 63(a) read with Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The court also found that the findings on whether the temple was a public or private temple were of no consequence due to the lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal, Contempt Petition and the Writ Petition were dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
S.A.No.305 of 2004: (Prayer: This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2003 passed in A.S.No.85 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padhmanabhapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2001 passed in O.S.No.121 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padhmanabhapuram.) Contempt Petition No.22 of 2005: (Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1871, to punish the respondents for violating the order in CMP No.1526 of 2004 in S.A.No.305 of 2004 dated 14.11.2004.) W.P.No.1727 of 2005: (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in No.501/2004 dated 9.7.2004, quash the same as illegal, void and ultra vires and direct the second respondent to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law upon the legal notice of the petitioner dated 29.6.2004.) 1. One Mr.Parameswaran Pillai and Damodaran Pillai jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram against one Manikandan Nair and Manmadan, praying for a decree of declaration of their right to administer a temple known as "Badrakaliamman Temple" and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs right to administer the temple and the properties comprised in Schedules A and B to the plaint. The said suit was taken up along with two other suits in O.S.Nos.324 of 1996 and 145 of 1998 by the Trial Court. In the meantime, during the pendency of the suit O.S.No.121 of 1994, the first plaintiff Parameswaran Pillai died and his legal heir P.Madhavan Pillai was impleaded as the third plaintiff. But later he also died. One Mr.P.Sundareswaran Nair was impleaded as the fourth plaintiff and in addition to the two defendants, who were originally made parties, 24 others were additionally impleaded as defendants.
2. By a common judgment and decree dated 28.6.2001, the Trial Court dismissed all the three suits. Two appeals were filed in A.S.Nos.85 of 2001 and 123 of 2001, the former arising out of the judgment in O.S.No.121 of 1994 and the latter arising out of the judgment in O.S.No.324 of 1998. The Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, dismissed both the appeals. Therefore, the fourth plaintiff and the seventh defendant in O.S.No.121 of 1994 have come up with the Second Appeal S.A.No.305 of 2004. 3. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, an interim order of injunction was granted, restraining the respondents/defendants from demolishing the temple any further. Complaining that the said order had been violated, the appellants in the Second Appeal have also filed a Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.22 of 2005. 4. In the meantime, the villagers, who were the contesting defendants in O.S.No.121 of 1994 and who claimed the suit temple to be a public temple, created a Trust in the name of the temple and registered the same. Contending that the registration of an institution for the management and administration of the suit temple, was an illegal act, the appellants have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1727 of 2005, challenging the proceedings of the Sub Registrar. This is how, we have on hand, a Second Appeal, a Contempt Petition and a Writ Petition and all of them were taken up together for disposal. 5. I have heard Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the second appeal and the petitioners in the Contempt petition and the writ petition. I have also heard Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-3 to 13 in the Second Appeal, who support the case of the appellants in the second appeal and Mr.S.S.Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 15 to 26, who are the contesting parties in the second appeal. 6. S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
