Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Prasanna Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Takkar/Superintendent, Arulmighu Dhandapani Swami Mutt, Palani, Dindigul District – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.452 of 2026 | C.M.P(MD)No.4069 of 2026 | W.P(MD)No.35244 of 2025 | Cont.P.(MD) No. 1671 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Murali
New pleas and unrelated documents cannot be introduced at appellate stage; eviction challenge becomes academic post-execution.
Headnote:The writ petition challenged an eviction order issued pursuant to court directions. Petitioner claimed tenancy but produced no evidence before the Single Judge. Single Judge dismissed petition, granting liberty to approach civil court. No specific statutes quoted. Court found no tenancy evidence and eviction completed. Issues framed as whether petitioner established tenancy rights and whether writ relief available post-eviction. Ratio: New pleas and documents not pertaining to appellant cannot be raised at appellate stage; challenge to eviction becomes academic after execution. Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of eviction and failed tenancy claim. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. opposing arguments on tenancy evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. no new pleas at appellate stage. (Para 7 , 8) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.35244 of 2025, dated 09.12.2025, whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed.
2.The Writ Petition was originally filed against the order of eviction dated 01.12.2025 passed by the respondent. The said notice was issued pursuant to the directions of this Court in Cont.P.(MD) No. 1671 of
2018, dated 09.01.2024.
3.It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he was a lessee of the property and that the eviction notice was issued suddenly without any prior intimation.
4.The learned Single Judge, on considering the materials available on record, found that there was no evidence to establish that the writ petitioner was a lessee and that no document had been produced in support of such claim. Taking note of the fact that the eviction process had already been completed, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the civil court to establish any right over the subject property, if so advised. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner as appellant.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner is in fact a tenant and that he has a registered document evidencing such tenancy. It is further contended that the eviction was effected without properly considering the appellant’s rights and that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the Writ Petition without examining the said document.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant has not produced any document before the learned Single Judge to establish his alleged tenancy. It is further contended that the document now relied upon in the Writ Appeal does not pertain to the appellant, but relates to a third party, namely Rajendran. The learned counsel also submitted that the eviction has already been completed pursuant to the directions of this Court and, therefore, no relief can be granted in the present appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8.In the Writ Appeal, the appellant has raised a new plea claiming that he is a tenant and has relied upon a registered document. However, on perusal of the typed set of papers filed in support of the Writ Appeal, it is seen that the said registered deed pertains to one Rajendran and does not relate to the appellant/writ petitioner. It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to raise a new case at the appellate stage. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellant has already been evicted from the temple properties. In such circumstances, any challenge to the eviction notice does not survive for consideration and the relief sought has become purely academic. Hence, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal.
