Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
A.K.Karuppanan – Appellant
Versus
Executive Officer Of A/m Sadayaperumal Temple – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal against lower court's decree. (Para 2) |
| 2. high court's jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. no substantial questions raised; appeal is to be dismissed. (Para 6 , 14) |
| 4. claims by plaintiff of ancestral property ownership contested. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. patta legality and requirements under the inam abolition act. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. final decision: appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. (Para 15 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.49 of 2024, dated 18.08.2025, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.61 of 2016, dated 30.08.2024, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, Madurai District.
3. The first defendant and the defendants 2 to 10 filed written statements and contested the suit. The learned District Munsif, Vadipatti, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2024, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2024 and the learned II Additional Subordinate J
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reassess factual findings unless a clear error in law has been demonstrate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the seco....
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.
Statutory grants of title following inam abolition provide the necessary basis to recover possession without seeking additional title declaration.
The Appellate Court erred by dismissing the cross-appeal without independent consideration, contravening procedural fairness, and the temple's claim to property based on service grant was upheld.
The temple established its title over properties through legal processes, while defendants failed to prove their claims, leading to dismissal of appeals.
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....
Point of law : Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Wh....
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
