SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Natesan Poosari and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
K.M. Sundaramoorthy and Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. (PD) No. 4128 of 2017 and C.M.P. No. 19357 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Srikanth, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Jothi for M.C. Govindan and N. Manokaran, Advocates.

Headnote:

Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Stamp Act - Section 35 - Civil Procedure Code - Order VII - Rule 10 or 11 - Rights of worship - Movable and immovable - Permanent injunction restraining – Claim of compensation - suit is filed in a representative capacity to safeguard rights of worship and Management and Administration of their Temple situate at - Respondents 5 herein would contend that Temple in question is a Religious Denomination Temple meant exclusively belonging to chief Deity - Respondents 1 to 5 herein would contend that this Temple was established nearly and property was purchased by the said families through community contributions in respect of the property stood in the name of Temple and Kist receipts were issued in the name of one Rama and electricity connection was taken in the name of his son - Administration of Temple was being carried on by a Temple Committee - They would go on to state that the Temple is specific to their family as there were several unique and distinctive features with reference to the customs surrounding the Temple. Some of the customs have also been recorded in writing and all these details would go to show that the said Temple was a Denomination Temple within the meaning of Article 26 (a) to (d) of Constitution of India – Held, Election petition as such does disclose a cause of action which if could void the election and the provisions cannot therefore be invoked in this case - There is no merit in the contention that some of allegations are bereft of material facts and as such do not disclose a cause of action -It is elementary that under O.VII R. 11 (a) C.P.C., Court cannot dissect pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. Under the rule, there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint or petition - It may be emphasized that object of said provisions is to keep out irresponsible law suits - In a way it is to be used as a handy tool by the Courts to segregate grain from the chaff, on a purely prima facie examination of the statements made in plaint - Hence effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act shall have to be examined after the suit is put to trial to decide if the relief sought by plaintiff in prayer c can be granted said plea directed against the relief sought in prayer c in itself is however insufficient to oust the plaintiff at this stage, insofar as reliefs sought in prayers a and b are concerned, as said reliefs cannot be held to be consequential to the relief sought in prayer - Hence, even if it is held that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff under prayer c in view of bar of Section 35 of the Stamp Act suit cannot be rejected for the reason that only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and it is obligatory for Court to reject plaint as a whole while examining the same under Order 7 Rule, C.P.C - This view has been reiterated in a recent of Supreme Court in Prasad and Another v. Axis Bank Ltd. and Another - Therefore it is evident that there cannot be a rejection of part of the plaint - Petition is dismissed

ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the dismissal of the application in I.A. No. 38 of 2016 filed by the revision petitioners who are defendants 1 to 5 in the suit O.S. No. 164 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal to declare that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the suit and consequently return the same. The brief narration of the facts, particularly the details given in the plaint, is necessary for disposing of the above Civil Revision Petition. The suit O.S. No. 164 of 2015 has been instituted by the respondents 1 to 5 herein against the revision petitioners and respondents 6 to 12 herein for the following reliefs:

(a) To declare the Paruthipalliar Sri Annamar Swami Thirukovil is a Religious Denomination Temple exclusively under the Administration and Management of "Kongu Nadar Kullam of Paruthipalliar Vagayara situate at a place called Paruthipalli and Ramapuram Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

(b) To declare the order made by the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE at Coimbatore, is without jurisdiction null and void in as much as the same is obtained by fraud and collusion.

(c) To declare defendants 1 to 5 are not the Hereditary Trustees or Hereditary Poojaris of Paruthipalliar Sri Annamar Swami Thirukovil, Namakkal.

(d) To declare only the Kongu Nadar Kullam of Paruthipalliar Vagayara are entitled to administer and maintain the Kuladeivam Temple as a Religious Denomination Temple within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

(e) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from in any manner exercising any claim or right over the said Temple.

The subject matter of the suit is the following property:

2. The Temples of Annamar, Chinnanan, Periannan @ Ponnar Sankar, Mayavar, Periakandi Amman, Vinayakar, Masuriannan, Vettaimar Swami Koil, Muthumuniappan Swami, Kanniamar etc situate in S. No. 31/1 and 2 of Paruthipalli Village, and Ramapuram Village, Thiruchengode Talluk, Namakkal District and their properties movable and immovable.

Particulars of the suit:

3. The suit is filed in a representative capacity to safeguard the rights of worship and the Management and Administration of their Kuladeivam Temple (Family Deity), situate at Thiruchengode, Namakkal. The respondents 1 to 5 herein would contend that the Temple in question is a Religious Denomination Temple meant exclusively for 1,500 families belonging to the Kongu Nadar Paruthipallaiyar Vagayara at Thiruchengode. The chief Deity is Sri Annamar Swamy.

4. The respondents 1 to 5 herein would contend that this Temple was established nearly 1,000 years ago and the property was purchased by the said 1,500 families through community contributions. The patta in respect of the property stood in the name of the Temple and Kist receipts were issued in the name of one Rama Nadar and electricity connection was taken in the name of his son Veeramani. The Administration of the Temple was being carried on by a Temple Paribalana Committee. They would go on to state that the Temple is specific to their family as there were several unique and distinctive features with reference to the customs surrounding the Temple. Some of the customs have also been recorded in writing and all these details would go to show that the said Temple was a Denomination Temple within the meaning of Article 26 (a) to (d) of the Constitution of India.

5. They would contend that though originally the Temple was the abode of one deity, viz; Sri Annamar Swamy, by efflux of time many other deities had been added along with the main deity. The Festivals, Utsavams and Poojas were unique to the Temple and the day to day Poojas were conducted by Temple Paribalana Committee and at no point of time the Temple was under the Control of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, hereinafter called the Board.

6. The committees which were taking care of the activities of the Temple was chosen by 1,500 families

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top