Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
A.RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges temple ownership claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prior decrees establish petitioners' possession rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lack of evidence undermines temple's claim. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. proceedings under section 78 deemed unsustainable. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the order passed in Pa.Ma.No.44 of 2003 dated 22.11.2023 by the 1st respondent.
2. Heard Dr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Venkateswaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the 5th respondent.
3. The petitioners challenge the final order passed under Section 78 under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 treating the petitioners as encroachers/trespassers on the property belonging to the Temple. The learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the fact that the petitioners' mother had filed a suit in O.S. No.323 of 1984 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Salem and after contest, the decree came to be passed on 15.06.1985, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to be in possession and enj
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
