IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

1. Mrs.Guna @ Gunasundari

2. V.N.Senkuttuvan ..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. R.Subramanian @ R.S.Mani (Died)

2. Buvaneswari 3. Madhivanan

4. Kanagaraj

5. Senthilkumar

6. Thanga @ Sengani

7. Thamaraiselvi

8. Thenmozhi

9. Geetha R1 Died, R3 to R9 Are Brought On Record As LRs Of Deceased R1, Vide Order Of Court Dated 29/11/2023 Made in Cmp.Nos.20746, 20747 And 20749/2021 In As.No.441/2011 ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 21.07.2011 in O.S.No.4 of

2010 on the file of Learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.

For Appellant(s): Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi For Respondent(s): R1 – Died RR2 to R9 – No appearance (served)

JUDGMENT

The present first appeal has been filed challenging the decree and judgement dated 21.07.2011 made in the O.S.No.4 of 2010 on the Learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry, Karaikal.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a Scheme Suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2010 against the 1st respondent/defendant, the deceased Mr. R. Subramanian @ R.S. Mani, and the 2nd respondent/defendant, for the efficient administration of Arulmigu Drowbadai Amman Koil. The 1^st respondent had died and his legal heirs are impleaded as respondents 3 to 9 to the present appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants in the aforesaid suit was that the temple Arulmigu Drowbadai Amman Koil, was under the administration of one Pakkiam @ Pakkimuthu, husband of the 1st plaintiff/ appellant, who had dedicated about 530 kuzhis of land to the temple and was managing its affairs. It was contended that the 1st defendant/respondent who was stranger to the temple, claimed himself to be the trustee and interfered with its administration. Consequently, Pakkiam filed O.S. No. 263 of 1984 for permanent injunction, which was decreed on 05.12.1986 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal, restraining the 1st defendant from doing further damage to the temple properties. Mr.Pakkiam thereafter filed a Scheme Suit O.S. No. 40 of 1996, which came to be dismissed following his death. Subsequently the 1st plaintiff/appellant nominated the 2nd plaintiff/appellant to administer the temple as her power agent, and the 2^nd plaintiff/ appellant has been managing affairs of the temple since then. It’s further contended that the 1st defendant falsely claimed ownership over the temple properties, attempted to alienate the same and received amounts from the 2nd defendant, an occupier of the temple land, towards the same. Hence, the aforesaid suit O.S.No.4 of 2010 has been filed.

4. Per contra, the respondents contended that the 1st respondent is the sole trustee of the said temple and that the plaintiffs have no connection with the temple or its properties. It was submitted that the temple was established by the ancestors of the 1st respondent and has been under their management for generations, and the trusteeship was passed on to the 1^st respondent. It was further contended that the 2nd plaintiff was merely an agent of the 1st respondent and had illegally assumed control over the temple’s administration. The 1st respondent had also instituted a suit in O.S. No. 34 of 1991 seeking declaration of his status as sole trustee of the temple, which was decreed on 08.09.1992. The respondents further submitted that the 2nd plaintiff, being only a power agent of the 1st plaintiff, is not competent enough to institute the present suit on her behalf. It was also contended that the suit, being one under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ought to have been instituted before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Therefore it was contended that the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit

5. Upon hearing the rival submissions made on either side and upon perusing