SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
P.MARIAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
SADAGOPA RAMANUJAM – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 18 / 08 / 2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and M.P.(MD).Nos.3 & 4 of 2008 --

P.Mariappan .. Appellant in S.A.No.653 of 1999 Arulmigu Madyapureeswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Parakkalakottai Village, Pattukottai Taluk. .. Appellant in S.A.(MD)1270 of 2005 Vs.

1. Sadagopa Ramanujam

2. Mathiapureeswara Swamy Koil, Rep. by its Hereditary Trustee

3. R.M.S.Meyyappan (died)

4. The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Madhyapureeswara Swamy Temple, Parakkalakottai Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District. PIN.614 613.

(Fourth respondent impleaded as respondent, Vide Order dated 25.02.2008 made in C.M.P.No.3445 of 2002 in S.A.No.653 of 1999

5. M.Thangavadivel

6. M.Bagavandoss (Respondents 5 and 6 are represented through Power Agent R.M.S.Meyappa Thevar)

(Respondents 5 and 6 are impleaded, Vide Order dated 12.03.2013 made in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009 in S.A.No.653 of 1999 and S.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2005)

7. M.Rajathi Ammal

8. S.Shengagam 9. A.Marichelvam

10. P.Kaladevi

11. M.Sivayogham (Respondents 7 to 11 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased third respondent, vide Court Order dated 20.09.2018 in C.M.P.No.9916 of 2017 in S.A.No.653 of 1999)

.. Respondents in S.A.No.653 of 1999

1. Sadagoparamanujam, Rep. by its Power Agent R.M.S.Meyyappan

2. Mariappan

3. M.Thangavadivel 4. M. Bagavandoss (Respondents 3 and 4 are represented through their Power Agent R.M.S.Meyappa Thevar)

(Respondents 3 and 4 are impleaded vide Court order dated 12.02.2013 made in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009 in S.A.No.653 of 1999 and S.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2005)

.. Respondents in S.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2005 Second Appeal No.653 of 1999 filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (i.e. CPC) against the judgment and decree dated

01.02.1999 made in A.S.No.31 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukottai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1998 made in O.S.No.345 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.

Second Appeal(MD)No.1270 of 2005 filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2004 made in A.S.No. 18 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Pattukottai, as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2003 in O.S.No.139 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.

For appellant in S.A.No.653 of 1999 : Mr.A.Thiagarajan For appellant in S.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2005 : Mr.R.Devaraj For respondents in S.A.No.653 of 1999: Mr.R.Devaraj for R-4 Mr.P.T.Narendravasan for RR-1 and

5 to 11 in S.A.No.653 of 1999 Mr.P.Thiagaran for R-2 in S.A.(MD)1270 of 2005 Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan for RR-3 and 4 in S.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT S.A.No.653 of 1999 has been filed by one P.Mariappan against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1999 made in A.S.No.31 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukottai, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1998 made in O.S.No.345 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.

2. S.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2005 has been filed by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Madyapureeswara Swamy Temple-Sadagoparamanujam, Parakkalakottai Village, Pattukottai Taluk, against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2004 made in A.S.No.18 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Pattukottai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2003 made in O.S.No.139 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.

3. The suit in O.S.No.345 of 1992 was filed by one P.Mariappan, a worshipper of Arulmigu Sri Madyapureeswarasamy Temple at Parakkalakottai Village, before the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai, seeking a declaration that the suit schedule properties belong to the said Temple, and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, Sadagopa Ramanujam, and the second defendant from alienating or encumbering the said properties. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top