Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL
Pattadaras and the Permanent Resident of Thangi Village, Kancheepuram – Appellant
Versus
Kailasanathar Temple, Thangio Village, Rep. By Executive Officer – Respondent
ORDER :
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the Common Order dated December 11, 2018, passed in I.A. Nos.140 and 141 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, the respondents in the Interlocutory Applications who are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit, have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. Case of the plaintiffs, who have filed the Suit in representative capacity as indicated in the cause title, is that an extent of 12 Acre 25 Cents in Survey No.45 of Thangi Village is the suit property. The suit property belongs to the first defendant - Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple represen- ted by its Executive Officer. In the last week of July 1994, the second de- fendant / Special Tahsildhar, Kancheepuram, visited the suit property with surveyor and surveyed about 4 Acres of land on the western side thereof. When enquired by the then trustee of the Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple - P.Padmanaban, it came to light that the sixth defendant has recommended on March 12, 1994 to make house site plots in the suit property for washe
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.
Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 directed the trial court to expedite injunction applications regarding temple property disputes, emphasizing lawful eviction processes and maintenance of st....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Officer has the right to file a suit for temple properties, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the prop....
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 court ruled that rightful ownership evidenced through proper documentation takes precedence over claims of adverse possession by the defendant regarding property allegedly belonging to a temple.
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
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
