Advocates:
['M/S S SARAVANAN', '', 'K ARANGESWARAN', 'V B PREMALATHA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 05.01.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 29.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

S.A.No.970 of 2012

and

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

The Madathipathi of Sri Nataraja matam

Chockalingaswami matam, Vedantha matam,

Keelpandy, Veppanjeri,

Thavathiru Sadhu Shanmuga Adilagar Swamigal

represented by his Power Agent,

C.Arul Gnana Sambantham,

Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk and D.Mu.Department.

... Appellant/Petitioner

.vs.

The Madathipathi of Peria matam

Sri Sivananda Swamigal,

Thirumazhapody,

Ariyalur Taluk,

D.Mu.Department

... Respondent/Defendant

PRAYER:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.13

of 2011, dated 25.08.2012, on the file of Sub-Court, Mannargudi,

Thirvarur District reversing the judgment and decree made in

O.S.No.42 of 2007, dated 19.11.2010, on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, Thiruvarur District.

For Appellant :

Mr.A.Natarajan

Senior Counsel

for Mr.S.Saravanan

For Respondent :

Mr.V.Manohar

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff is the appellant herein. The Madathipathi of

Sri Nataraja matam,Chockalingaswami matam, Vedantha matam,

Keelpandy, Veppanjeri by Thavathiru Sadhu Shanmuga Adigalar

Swamigal( in short ''Sadhu Shanmuga Adigalar) had filed a suit

for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant,

the Madathipathi of Peria matam from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in O.S.No.42

of 2017, Thiruthuraipoondi. The suit was decreed after trial. On

appeal by the defendant in A.S.No.13 of 2011, the appeal was

allowed and hence, the second Appeal.

2.The above Second Appeal was admitted on the following

substantial questions of law:

1.Whether the

lower appellate Court has

committed an error in law in holding that the

respondent is entitled to cancel the Trust Nomination

Deed made in favour of the appellant, when the deed

itself contains a clause that the same is

irrevocable?

2.Whether the lower appellate Court has

committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is

not entitled to the relief of injunction, as he had

not sought for a declaration of his status as

Madathipathi?

3.Whether the lower appellate Court has

committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is

not entitled to the relief of injunction without

there being a prayer for cancellation of Ex.B8?

3.Heard the submissions made by Mr.A.Natarajan, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Manohar,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Madathipathi of

Periya matam/defendant-matam.

4.The brief facts that are necessary for the determination

of the above Second Appeal is as under:

4.1.The respondent herein has executed Ex.A2 wherein the

plaintiff was appointed as Madathipathi of Sri Nataraja matam,

Chocklingswami matam, Vedantha matam of Veppanchery by way of a

Trust Nomination Deed, dated 5.8.2002, whereby, the plaintiff

was vested with the matams and the properties belonging to the

matams which are situated at Veppanchery Village, Kilpande,

Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk. Since the date of the Trust Deed and

vesting of the properties upon the plaintiff, the

plaintiff/Appellant has been in possession of the properties.

The revenue records viz.,Patta, Chitta and Kist receipts stand

in the name of the plaintiff/Appellant.

4.2.Since the respondent herein has tried to disturb the

appellant's possession of the suit property by use of force,

the Petitioner/appellant herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.42 of

2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court,

Thiruthuraipoondi for permanent injunction against the

respondent from interferring with the peaceful possession of the

property.

4.3.The respondent herein contended before the trial Court

that a Deed of Cancellation has been executed by the respondent

under