Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
S. Solai
Versus
N.A. Ayyakkanu
C.R.P.(MD).No.1059 of 2014(PD) & M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014
Decided on: 09-10-2014
HONOUR - RELIGIOUS RIGHTS - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 - Section 108, Section 9 of CPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the applicability of Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, and Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in relation to the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's right to receive the first Honour. The court also considered various judgments including 1961 STPL (LE) 1918 SC, 2004(4) CTC 650, 2009(4) CTC 377, and 2011(6) CTC 689, to determine the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to religious honours and privileges. The court emphasized the distinction between suits for establishing customary religious rights and suits to establish one's right to an office in a temple and the honours and privileges attached to it.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's right to receive the first Honour from a temple. The petitioner contested the suit on the grounds of the applicability of Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, and Section 9 of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not barred by Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, and Section 9 of CPC. The court also emphasized the distinction between suits for establishing customary religious rights and suits to establish one's right to an office in a temple and the honours and privileges attached to it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to religious honours and privileges, and the applicability of Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, and Section 9 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's right to receive the first Honour was maintainable in the Civil Court and was not barred by the aforementioned legal provisions.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the order of the learned Judge granting interim injunction till the pendency of the suit or till the orders of the Executive Officer is in force.
1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 02.01.2014 passed in I.A.No.560 of 2013 in O.S.No.133 of 2013 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam.
2. The petitioner is defendant, whereas the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.133 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.
3. The respondent filed O.S. No.133 of 2013 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and persons claiming through him from receiving first honour (mudal mariyathai) for Ilam Magar Division (Young magar division) of their community given by Thirukalambur Arulmigu Kathalivaneswarar Temple. The respondent also filed I.A.No.560 of 2013 for temporary injunction pending suit.
4. According to the respondent, Thirukalambur Arulmigu Kathalivaneswarar temple is a public temple and it belongs to ten sections of people residing in that Village. The family of the respondent is one among them. Originally, respondent's father Alagu Ambalam was receiving the first Honour. After his death, his first son Kannusamy (brother of respondent) was receiving the same. The said Kannusamy died without male issues and therefore, Singaram (father of petitioner) the second son of Alagu Ambalam was receiving the first honour.
5. In the year 2010, the second son of Singaram died. From the date of death of his second son, Singaram stopped coming to the temple. Hence, the respondent was receiving the first Honour from the year 2010. The said Singaram died on 22.09.2013. After his death, the respondent was receiving the first Honour.
6. At that stage, on 02.12.2013, the petitioner gave representation to the Executive Officer of the temple to give first Honour to him. The Executive Officer after enquiry by order in Na.Ka.No.754/2013 dated 09.12.2013 ordered that the respondent will be entitled to receive first Honour as he was receiving the same from the year 2010 and stated that only if the petitioner obtains suitable orders from competent court a final decision in this regard would be taken.
7. The petitioner was interfering with the right of respondent to receive first Honour. Hence, the respondent filed suit for permanent injunction and also I.A.No.560 of 2013 for temporary injunction pending suit.
8. The petitioner filed counter affidavit denying the averments of respondent and opposed the grant of injunction pending suit on the ground that,
(a) the suit is barred by operation of Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959;
(b) a peace committee meeting was held and both petitioner and respondent agreed for suspension of the order of the Executive Officer; and
(c) the petitioner has already filed an appeal in O.A. No. 264 of 2013 before the Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Trichy.
For the above reasons, petitioner prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.560 of 2013.
9. The learned Judge after considering all the materials on record granted interim injunction pending suit or till the order of Executive Officer is in force.
10. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.01.2014 made in I.A.No.560 of 2013, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit and Interlocutory Application are not applicable and are barred as per Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and Section 9 of CPC. The learned counsel contended that a Civil Court cannot decide the customary right of religious Honours. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments:
(i) 1961 STPL (LE) 1918 SC (SINHA RAMANUJA JEER VS. RANGA RAMANUJA JEER)
(ii) 2004(4) CTC 650 MUTHAMILSELVAN AND OTHERS VS. A.MANICKAM AND OTHERS
(iii) 2009(4) CTC 377 MUTHAMILSELVAN
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
