Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
The District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
A. Karuppasamy Thevar and Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 994 of 2001
Decided On : 11-07-2019
For the Appellant : R. Sethuraman, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondents: S.P. Maharajan.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 26 - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 108 - Community could claim itself to be a minority community either religious or denominational - spend a reasonable amount for welfare of said temple - Court respondents plaintiffs filed suit and seeking relief of declaration declaring that suit temple is denominational temple belongs to Trevor Community - Further for relief of permanent injunction restraining appellants defendants in interfering with enjoyment worship of suit schedule property and for costs - By judgment and decree Principal District allowed suit in favor of plaintiffs and granted decree in favor of them - Aggrieved over said findings appellants defendants preferred an appeal before Second Additional District Judge – Held, Notice provision must disclose nature of suit as well as reliefs claimed therein in order to enable persons interested to get themselves imp leaded as parties to suit either support case or oppose it - Notice must state about why suit has been filed and what is relief claimed therein and it must also state as to who are persons who have been selected to represent cause - Before applying facts of this case with precedent now referred by appellants it should be necessary to see in same judgment in which it was mentioned that non mentioning of details case in paper publication is curable defect - In this regard stand taken by appellants before this Court is not taken before trial Court - Further before trial Court even copy of paper publication has not been marked to prove that paper publication issued by plaintiffs is defective one - Furthermore it is necessary to see that after allowing application filed Order Rule by trial Judge no appeal or revision is preferred by appellants immediately before proceeding with trial - It shows that only for purpose of this appeal counsel appearing for appellants would contend as like this - Fact said arguments advanced by counsel appearing for appellants is matter in respect to interim application filed by plaintiffs So without challenging order passed by trial Judge in appropriate time raising objection in this second appeal is not entertain able - Accordingly substantial questions of law answered as above – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R. Pongiappan, J.
1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings made in O.S. No. 757 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli and in A.S. No. 64 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, the appellants/defendants filed this second appeal.
2. Before the trial Court, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit and seeking the relief of declaration declaring that the suit temple is the denominational temple belongs to the Thevar Community. Further, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants in interfering with the enjoyment, worship of the suit schedule property and for costs. By judgment and decree dated 21.02.1997, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and granted the decree in favour of them. Aggrieved over the said findings, the appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. By judgment and decree dated 25.10.1999, the learned Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, after confirming the findings arrived at by the trial Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants/defendants have filed the present second appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described by the trial Court.
4. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-
The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for themselves and on behalf of the Thevar community people residing in Vilagam village, Tirunelveli Taluk. In the said village, the plaintiffs are residing, there was a temple in the name of Karuppaswamy temple. The said temple was constructed by the Thevar community people in the year of 1925. Only the people of Thevar Community constructed the said temple by putting their money in the said temple. Yearly once the said community people celebrated Sivarathiri and Thirukarthikai functions. Apart from that, Kodaivizha has also been celebrated once in two or three years. For the celebration of festivals, the said community people alone spend the money. The said temple is a denominational temple. Except the people belong to the Thevar Community, the other community people did not worship in the said temple. There is no permanent priest to the temple. The first plaintiff maintained the said temple for the past 15 years. On 14.01.1969, one Manakkavala Perumal Thevar, Karupaswamy Thevar, Esakki Thevar and Muthu Thevar donated 11 cents of land vide sale deed dated 14.01.1961 to the said temple. Similarly, on 09.08.1973, some other people belong to the Thevar community donated four cents of land for the benefit of temple. The defendants are not having any right in interfering with the temple administration. For the letter sent by the second and third defendants, the first plaintiff repeatedly sent a reply notice. Vide letter dated 02.07.1992, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department directed the plaintiffs to get the Court order that the temple belongs to the Thevar community. Hence the suit.
5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, in brief, are as follows:-
It is not correct to say that the temple under dispute is constructed by the Thevar Community people. In fact, the temple was administrated by the people belong to the various community. Further the temple was constructed in S.F. No. 35/A1 which belongs to the Government. There was no compound wall to the temple. The temple under dispute is not a denomination temple. It is not correct to say that the people of the Thevar community purchased the land and donated the same to the temple. There is no substantial evidence to prove the same. From the year 1976 onwards, the temple is under the control of the first defendant. The suit has been filed after the lapse of 16 years from the date on which the defendants are entering into the administration of
