Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL, J
Arulmigu Anangkottai Shir Poottu – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.Sakthivel, J.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 21, 2018 passed in A.S.No.43 of 2015 by the 'I Additional Subordinate Court, Salem' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 18, 2015 passed in C.F.R.No.3788 of 2015 in O.S.No. [Unnumbered] / 2015 by the ‘Principal District Munsif Court at Salem' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
3. The Suit Property is a Government land in which 'Arulmigu Alangkottai Shri Poottu Muniappan Temple' (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Temple') is situated. The Suit Temple is located in the North-Western portion of the bungalow of the Principal District Judge, Salem. The plaintiffs 2 to 7, with the help of residents of Ayyanthirumaligai, Pallakkadu constructed an asbestos shed and installed one Kavalkaran Statue and one Horse Statue in the Suit Temple 15 years ago. They have also erected a water tank in the Suit Temple. The Suit Temple is more than 100 years old. The 2nd plaintiff is the Poosari of the Suit Temple who has be
The Trial Court must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot reject a plaint without proper procedure and hearing, even in cases deemed vexatious.
The plaintiff failed to prove the location of the temple, leading to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of the temple on the date of filing the suit was sufficient to establish its possession, and the defendants' right to assert tit....
The court reinforced the necessity of justifying delays in applications to set aside ex-parte decrees while emphasizing the need to decide matters based on merits.
A suit challenging a sale deed on the grounds of boundary relevance is barred by limitation if filed long after the deed's registration, with the plaintiff lacking standing due to the non-existence o....
The HR & CE Department is a necessary party in title disputes involving temple properties, and amendments to include declarations must be timely filed within the limitation period.
The need for concrete evidence to establish possession and the importance of considering physical features and documentary evidence in property disputes.
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
