Prior adjudications determine ownership of property; re-litigation on the same issue is impermissible.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.131 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.

2. The respondents herein filed the suit in O.S.No.131 of 2025 before the District Munsif Court, Melur, seeking declaration declaring that the suit temple is a public temple, along with a consequential relief restraining the petitioners / defendants from interfering with the rights of the public in worshipping the deities of the said temple, namely Muniyandi Swami and Nondi Swami.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, in respect of the same suit temple, the President of the Alathur Panchayat had earlier instigated the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk to issue a notice to one Pethimaharajan, directing him to reinstall the deities, namely Muniyandi Swami and Nondi Swami, to their original position. The said notice was challenged by the above said Pethimaharajan before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10378 of 2005. In the said writ petition, this Court held that the property in Survey No. 43/B belonged to the petitioners' great-grandfather, who had originally installed the deities. Subsequently, the said survey number was subdivided as Survey No. 43/6C in the year 1987, measuring 0.09.5 hectares, and Patta No.228 was issued in favour of the above said Pethimaharajan's mother and another person, Pandiammal, by the Special Tahsildar (U.D.R.). The Writ Petition was allowed on 15.07.2010, and this Court observed that any person claiming any right in the said property cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioners' family.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore contends that in view of the finality of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.10378 of 2005, the present suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable and is without jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that liberty may be granted to the respondents to prefer an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.10378 of 2005, dated

15.07.2010.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

7. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The very same issue regarding the nature of the temple and the title to the property was adjudicated by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10378 of 2005, and a categorical finding has been rendered that the property and temple belonged to the petitioners' family, and no declaration from the authorities is necessary. This Court also held that any contrary claim cannot be entertained by the authorities or by way of fresh proceedings. The relevant portion of the order dated 15.07.2010 reads as follows:

“9. The contention of the 4 respondent that members of various communities are given the “Nattamay Mariyathai" for over a considerable period and that the customs and practice prevailing in the temple should be allowed to continue, cannot be accepted in view of the categorical statement of the second respondent that the Deities have been installed by the ancestors of the writ petitioner When the Revenue Authority and that they are very much in the patta land belonging to the writ petitioner and his family members. When the Revenue Authority himself has admitted that the temple is situated in a private land and that Deities were installed by the petitioner's ancestors, merely because a custom was practiced in the village, neither the president nor the members of the village can make a claim that the Deities should face eastern direction and that the landowner has no