A.S.No.397 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment Reserved on : 02.12.2022

Judgment Pronounced on : 14.12.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

A.S.No.397 of 2010

and M.P.No.1 of 2010

1. Durgai Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam

a specific endowment to

Arulmigu Siddhi Ganesar Nataraj Perumal

Durgaiamman Group Temples,

Represented by K.Jeevanandam

2. K.Jeevanandam

.. Appellants

Versus

1. Idols of Arulmigu Siddhi Ganesar Natarja Perumal

Durgaiamman Group Temples,

Rep. by its Executive Officer

2. Govindarajulu

.. Respondents

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Or XLI R 1 and 2 of Civil

Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.06.2008

made in O.S.No.4769 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional

Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai and allow the above Appeal Suit.

1/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.397 of 2010

For Appellants

: M/s.P.Priyanka

for M/s.R.Gouri

For Respondents

: Mr.S.D.Ramalingam

Mr.D.R.Sivakumar, for R1

: R2 - Exparte

JUDGMENT

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated

11.06.2008 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court,

Chennai in O.S.No.4769 of 2006, in and by which, the suit filed by the

plaintiff, to declare that the plaintiff temple will be entitled to manage and

administer the Durgai Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam and to direct the

defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule properties

and for verifying the accounts and rents, was decreed by the Trial Court.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiff is that, it is one of the oldest temple

situated at No.8, Manali Chinniah Garden II Street, Old Washermanpet,

Chennai - 600 021. For the maintenance of the temple, the then Trustees,

with the help of the public and collections made from the devotees, had put

2/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.397 of 2010

up a Kalyana Mandapam in the temple premises itself in the first floor as a

specific endowment for the temple. The same is rented out for weddings

and other functions and the income derived there from was utilised by the

temple for its maintenance. The second defendant's father, D.Kandaswamy

Chetty and one D.Munuswamy Chetty were declared as the Hereditary

Trustees of the temple. Subsequently, by order, dated 12.12.1974, with the

consent of the then Trustees, an Executive Officer was also appointed to be

incharge of the day to day administration and properties of the temple.

While so, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., by order in O.A.No.37 of

1987, dated 27.02.1995, had declared that the said Kalyana Mandapam as a

specific endowment within the meaning of Section 6(19) of The Tamil Nadu

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The then Trustees

of the temple namely, D.Kandaswamy Chettiar and D.Munuswamy Chettiar,

had also filed O.A.No.34 of 1985 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. &

C.E., for a declaration that they are the founding Hereditary Trustees of the

said Durgai Lakshmi Thirumana Mandapam and the same was dismissed by

an order, dated 27.02.1995. After the death of the said D.Kandaswamy

Chettiar, the second defendant was appointed as the Hereditary Trustee of

the temple. In the place of the other Hereditary Trustee, D.Munuswamy

3/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.397 of 2010

Chettiar, the third defendant was appointed as the Hereditary Trustee of the

temple. Being the Trustees, they also looked after the endowment attached

to the temple. However, the collections made and the income derived from

the said Kalyana Mandapam have not been accounted and the monies were

not handed over to the temple and has been personally utilised by the said

K.Jeevanandam and Govindarajulu. Therefore, the Executive Officer sent a

communication, dated 20.10.2004 to the said K.Jeevanandam asking him to

hand over all the do