Palanichamy vs Poochikalai - 2026 Supreme(Mad) 1269

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Palanichamy – Appellant
Versus
Poochikalai – Respondent

Advocates:
For Appellant: Dr.C.Gunaseelarupan
For Respondents: Mr.A. Saravanan, Mr.N. Ramanathan

Table of Content
1. arguments on amended s.55 applicability to hereditary pujari rights. (Para 4 , 6 , 7)
2. rejection of impleading fit person as unnecessary. (Para 8 , 9)
3. amended s.55 abolishes hereditary succession for archakas. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. appeal dismissed, confirming appellate reversal. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The second plaintiff, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

2. I have heard Dr.C.Gunaseela Rupan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. A. Saravanan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, and Mr.A.N. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the proposed 4^th respondent in CMP(MD) No. 16732 of 2025.

3. The brief facts that may be necessary to adjudicate the present Second Appeal are as hereunder:

(i) The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 256 of 2009 seeking a relief of declaration to declare them as pujari in Arulmigu Soolapidariamman Temple and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the Pujariship rights. The suit was contested by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs did not have any pujari rig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP.B.Balaji, JPalanichamy – AppellantVersusPoochikalai – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Palanichamy – Appellant
Versus
Poochikalai – Respondent