Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
S.S. Sundar, J.
Chinna Ovu Reddiar and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Sankarankoil Taluk - Respondent
Second Appeal (MD) No. 524 of 2011, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1, 2 of 2011 & 1 of 2013
Decided On : 22-11-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : V. Meenakshi Sundaram for D. Nalla Thambi
For the Respondent: S. Meenakshi Sundaram
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act – Temple/Trust/Religious places - Suit for permanent injunction - Possession and enjoyment of plaintiff temple - Trustee - juridical person - Whether lower Appellate Court is correct in decreeing suit, since temple is not a juridical person and hence not suit relating to temple property can be instituted in name of temple under law and as such whether lower Appellate Court ought to have dismissed suit on ground that there is no plaintiff before Court in eye of law - Plaintiff/respondent in this second appeal is a temple represented by its Thakkar - Plaintiff/respondent temple filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants/appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff temple - Case of plaintiff/respondent is that suit property belongs to plaintiff temple and the plaintiff temple is in enjoyment of suit property by getting patta and paying kist - Plaintiff temple that on immediate north of suit property in existence and defendants/appellants have their houses only on further north of said pathway - Defendants/appellants are trying to interfere with enjoyment of plaintiff temple under pretext that said pathway is also running through suit property, on northern side and further defendants/appellants also claimed that there is another north south pathway running across suit property - Held, In light of judgment of Honble Supreme Court, there is no difficulty in holding that the temple represented by its trustee can be recognised as a juridical person - It is to be noted in the present case that the temple is represented by a named individual as Thakkar - Temple is only a place of religious worship - Though the temple is treated as the dwelling place of the deity, it may not have the status of a juridical person without an idol being installed - A temple where an idol is installed, can be recognised as a juristic person if it is properly represented by its Manager - plaintiff temple has been represented by the Thakkar who claimed to be the person in Management of the temple. The revenue records also prove the fact that the person representing temple is also shown as a trustee for the temple - A person who is in lawful administration of temple can be recognised as a trustee of temple unless there is rival claim - In present case, it is not case of defendants/appellants that a different person is in office as a trustee and hence suit filed by a Thakkar representing temple cannot be thrown out - Second appeal is dismissed.
S.S. Sundar, J.
1. The defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 95 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, are the appellants in this second appeal.
2. The plaintiff/respondent in this second appeal is a temple known as Sankarankovil Mesiapuram Village Pillaiyarkovil represented by its Thakkar.
3. The plaintiff/respondent temple filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff temple. The suit property is an extent of 16 acres in Survey No. 743/9 in Vannikonenthal Village, Mesiapuram Majara, Sankarankovil Taluk.
4. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that the suit property belongs to plaintiff temple and the plaintiff temple is in enjoyment of the suit property by getting patta and paying kist. The electricity service connection is also stated to be obtained in the name of the temple.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff temple that on the immediate north of the suit property, a pathway in Survey No. 743/6 is in existence and the defendants/appellants have their houses only on the further north of the said pathway. Though the extent of pathway is only 11 1/4 feet x 201 feet, the defendants/appellants are trying to interfere with the enjoyment of the plaintiff temple under the pretext that the said pathway is also running through the suit property, on the northern side and further, the defendants/appellants also claimed that there is another north south pathway running across the suit property. It is because of the attempt made by the defendants/appellants to interfere with the enjoyment of the suit property by plaintiff temple, it is stated in the plaint that the suit came to be filed.
6. The defendants/appellants filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff temple in respect of the suit property. The defendants/appellants also took a stand that there is no one as Thakkar for the plaintiff temple and that the suit filed by a person called Thakkar is not maintainable. It is also the case of the defendants/appellants that there is no pathway in Survey No. 743/6 even though the pathway is shown in the revenue records. The defendants/appellants contended that the land in Survey No. 743/6 belonged to them and that the revenue department has wrongly classified this land as a pathway even though the actual pathway on ground is situated in suit survey number namely Survey No. 743/9 and that it is only the pathway in Survey No. 763/9 is enjoyed by the defendants/appellants and others. The defendants/appellants have also claimed right of easement by prescription stating that they are enjoying the pathway in Survey No. 743/9 for a period of more than 100 years.
7. The defendants/appellants also preferred counter claim seeking declaration and consequential injunction of their easementary right over the pathway on the northern side of the suit property in Survey No. 743/9 specifying the east west measurement as 116 feet and north south measurement as 16 1/2 feet.
8. The plaintiff temple also filed a written statement to the counter claim and the details of the counter claim are not necessary and not to be elaborated having regard to the scope of the present appeal.
9. The trial Court framed necessary issues and found that the east-west pathway is existing only in Survey No. 743/6 and that there is no east-west pathway in Survey No. 743/9 as contended by the defendants/appellants. Hence, the counter claim was rejected and the plaintiff's case was accepted. However, the trial Court has found that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as Thakkar of the plaintiff temple and that the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit representing the plaintiff temple. Peculiarly, the trial Court observed that by granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff temple, the plaintiff under the guise of injunction may even prevent the defendants/appellants from exercising their rights in the
