Disposed

S.Ramasamy v. Sundarapandia Vinayagar Deity

Madras HC28 Jun 2017CRP(MD)/1940/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that a revision petition under Section 115 CPC challengeiing an order returning an EA under Section 47 CPC was disposed of without merits. The Court observed that since the impugned order reversing the EA was based on the temple being taken over by the HR&CE Board, and that fact had changed with the revocation of the Takkar appointment, no ground survived for reconsideration

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

S.Ramasamy Vs Sundarapandia Vinayagar Deity — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.R.P.(MD)No.1940 of 2014 (NPD) and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 S.Ramasamy ...Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent/ Defendant Vs. Sundarapandia Vinayagar Deity, Thoothukudi through its Akthar Gomathi (Died) 1)G.Murugan 2)G.Subbarayan 3)G.Saravanan 4)G.Malmurugan 5)G.Nirmala 6)The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai. 7)The Executive Officer Arulmighu Sankararameswara Temple, Tuticorin. ...Respondents R6 & R7 are suo-motu impleded vide order dated 15.09.2014 made in CRP(MD)No.1940/2014 and MP(MD) 1/2014

¶3

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin in reversing unnumbered E.A.SR.No.4204 of 2014 filed on 01.04.2014 in EP.No.124 of 2012 in OS.No.264 of 2005 on the following among other.

¶4

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Nandakumar For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr.Muthugeethaian

¶5

ORDER

¶6

This revision petition is directed against the return of EA filed under Section 47 of CPC in E.P.No.124 of 2012 on the ground that the subject temple was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department vide order dated 28.02.2011 and therefore, the decree holders who claim to be the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hereditary trustees of Sundarapandia Vinayagar Kovil, Tuticorin are ceased to be the persons managing the affairs of the subject temple.

¶7

¶8

2.It is contended that after the appointment of Takkar

¶9

(Fit person) to the temple by the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, nothing survives in the decree obtained by the plaintiff for execution. It is also contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the execution petition and the identity of the property also not ascertained.

¶10

3.The petition which was filed under Section 47 of CPC

¶11

was returned by the Court below with the following endorsement,

¶12

“ The petitioner disputed the measurements and boundaries

¶13

as per Section 47 there is no way attracted in this points. Further at the time of execution only whether the decree can be executed or not regarding the measurements and the boundaries is concerned. Hence at this stage, this petition is not maintainable. Hence returned. ”

¶14

4.Now it is reported that the order of appointing Fit person to the subject temple has been revoked subsequently and the administration of the temple is again vested with hereditary trustees. Therefore, the grounds raised either in the revision petition or in the application filed under Section 47 of CPC do not survive, due to change in the vital factual scenario.

¶15

5.This Court is of the opinion that nothing survives in the revision petition for this Court to consider. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

1. The Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin.

¶22

1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai.

¶23

+1 CC to M/s.R.VIJAYAKUMAR, Advocate, SR No. 62481.

¶24

¶25

PSM/JC/SAR2/06.07.2017/2P/4C

¶26

CRP(MD)No.1940 of 2014 (NPD)

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 28.06.2017

S.Ramasamy v. Sundarapandia Vinayagar Deity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramasamy v. Sundarapandia Vinayagar Deity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Vs the Inspector of Police

Arumugam Gandhi (Died) Vs Peter

S. Prabakaran Vs R. Sreenivasan

Srinivasan @ Ramesh Srinivasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandra Mohan Vs the Inspector of Police

Eswaran, Vs the Inspector of Police