Dharampal Makkar & Ors. Vs Shri Mariyamman Tamil Temple through Its Alleged Secretary Mariyappan

Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ ) has been filed on behalf of the Appellants agasint the Order dated 03.11.2025 of learned District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, who has set-aside the Order of the Learned Civil Judge dated 28.01.2021 whereby the Suit filed by the Respondent was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has remanded back the Case for trial on merits.

¶17

A Civil Suit bearing CS/SCJ/437/2019, titled Shri Mariyamman Tamil Temple vs. Dharmapal Makkad and Ors., filed by the Respondent/Temple,

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2026 at 12:50:37

¶20

by averring that it was a registered Society vide Registration No. 54299 dated 02.12.2005, having its regisgtered Office at A-838, JJ Colony, Khyala, New Delhi. It was alloted the Suit Property vide Letter dated 17.05.1988 for religious purposes. There were five rooms in the front portion at 100 feet road of othe temple adjacent to Masjid at 830 bus stop, which were later on converted illegally into commercial shop by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, after making illegal encroachment. The five rooms are now being converted into commercial shops in the temple premises and on public road as well.

¶21

The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had taken the room as a licensee, for using them as temporary store as they used to put stalls for work as Hawkers on Public road, in front of the Temple. The rooms were given to them as licensees. In the tenure of Mr. Ramanwamy, father of K.P. Swamy, Defendant No. 2, the licnese was given to him from 1997 to 2003 on the terms that they will remove their goods/belongings as and when required by the Temple.

¶22

It was further averred that the Committee members and devotees, later in 2003, came to know that Mr. Ramaswamy had mala fide intentions as there were many mismanagement and irregularities during his tenure. Hence, he was removed from the Temple and a new Management Committee took over, on 16.05.2003. Thereafter, the new Management terminated the licenses of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Thereafter, he was asked to vacate the premises, which they failed to do.

¶23

Hence, the Suit was filed for directing the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, to vacate the respective premises and also to direct Defendant No. 5 to 6, to remove the encroachments made by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the public land.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2026 at 12:50:37

¶26

The Suit was contested by the Appellants. While the Suit was pending, the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed , which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide Order dated 28.01.2021 and the Suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶27

An Appeal vide RCA/DJ/24/2021 was preferred by the Respondent against the Impugned Judgment. The learned District Judge vide O rder dated 03.11.2025 has set aside the rejection Order and had directed the Suit to be decided on merits, by the learned Civil Court. 10. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Appeal has been filed. 11. The main grounds of challenge are that there was no cause of action disclosed in the Civil Suit. The Respondent/Temple does not have any title doucments; in fact, the Mandir Committee was never allotted the temple land. Appelants are bona fide purchasers of shops in question having purchased it, believing the Mandir Committee to be the owner of the Temple land. No title documents and allotment by the DDA, has been filed by the Respondent. Even the averments made in the pleadings, are vague and even after a full fleged trial, no relief can be granted to the Respondent.

¶28

The two communications between the Officers of DDA, have been labeled as Allotment letter. No sanction Letter and Completion Certificate as directed in W.P.(Civil) 2287/2014, has been filed on the basis of which the Writ Petition got dismissed. The filing of the Writ Petition in this Court, has been concealed by the Respondent in this Suit. 13. The Mandir Committee on its own, grabbed the DDA land and raised not only the construction, but also duped the Appellants, who had purchased the part land in the form of shops. It is submitted that there was no cause of action disclosed in the Suit and it had been rightly rejected by the learned

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2026 at 12:50:37

¶31

Civil Judge.

¶32

The learned District Judge fell in error in setting aside the Order of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the Suit. Hence, a prayer is made that the Order of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the Plaint, be restored.

¶33

Submissions heard and the record perused.

¶34

It is the pleading of the Appellants themselves that the land was in possession of the Respondent/Mandir Committee and from them, they had allegedly purchased the Suit land on which their shops have been made. 16. The main ground of challenge is that the Mandir was not the owner of the Suit Property and had no ownership dcouemnts in their favour. However, there is specific averement made by the Respondent that they had been allotted the land vide Order dated 17.05.1988. Furthermore, the Appellants themselves had claimed that they had purchased the property from the Respondent. Therefore, at this stage, they cannot question the title of the Respondent. Even otherwise, it is a matter of trial and cannot be summararily rejected.

¶35

The second aspect , which has been highlighted, is that W.P.(Civil) 2287/2014 had been filed by the Respondents with the similar prayer of demolition of unauthorised construction carried out in the Temple premises, which had been dismissed by this Court on 05.12.2014, by observing that there ws neither any sanction plan in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Once, the Plaintiff/Respondentt had not been able to place any of the documents, on the basis of which, the Writ Petition was dismissed, the Suit cannot be held maintainable in view of the obserevations of this Court in the Writ Petition.

¶36

Pertinently, it was a Writ which was dismissed on account of the

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2026 at 12:50:37

¶39

conduct of the Appellant/Respondent. However, this is a Civil Suit, which has been filed, which mandates the adjuciation of the rights on merits. There are specific averments of the Appellants being licensee in the Suit premises. On the other hand, they are claiming to have purchased the Property, though there are no documents and have relied on one Minutes of the Temple Committee. These are all triable issues, which require evidence.

¶40

The learned District Judge has rightly, overturned the Order of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the Suit and has remanded it back for trial on merits.

¶41

There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed. 21 The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶42

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶43

FEBRUARY 6, 2026/RS

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2026 at 12:50:37

Dharampal Makkar & Ors. v. Shri Mariyamman Tamil Temple through Its Alleged Secretary Mariyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal Makkar & Ors. v. Shri Mariyamman Tamil Temple through Its Alleged Secretary Mariyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Ravi Vs Srichand

Delhi Acrylic Mfg Co. P. Ltd. Vs Delhi Vidyut Board

Pratap Narain Verma Vs Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Anr.

Sh. Balwant Singh and Anr. Vs Smt. Jalpa Dugal and Anr.

Om Prakash Vs Raje & Anr.

Puneet Khurana Vs M/S Manoj Gupta and Sons (Huf)