Dismissed

K.Vijayan v. Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Kumarasingarachariar

Madras HC15 Dec 2020CRP/3393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In four civil revision petitions under Article 227, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the petitions. The Court held that the underlying suit seeking an injunction became infructuous following the filing of eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, rendering the revisions moot.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Vijayan Vs Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Kumarasingarachar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶9

K.Vijayan ...Petitioner in all CRPs
Vs.
1.Sri.Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Kumarasingarachariar
2.Sri.Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Kumarathottachariar
3.Sri.Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Srinivasachariar
4.Srimathi Rengamani
5.Srimathi B.B.Thirumamagal
6.Srimathi K.K.E.Vakula
7.K.Srimathi Revathi
8.Srimathi B.B.Sudha
9.Srimathi Geetha ...Respondents in all CRPs

¶10

Prayer in all CRPs: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order of District Munsif Court, Sirkali dated 23.07.2018 made in I.A.Nos. 596, 597 & 598 of 2016 in O.S.NO. 179 of 2013.

¶11

For Petitioner in all CRPs : Mr.S.Sounthar

¶12

For Respondents in all CRPs :Mr.A.Muthukumar

¶13

1/6

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

These three revisions have been filed as against the dismissal of

¶18

the applications filed by the plaintiff seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first defendant, to set aside the abatement and to

¶19

bring on record the legal representatives of the first defendant.

¶20

Though the delay was only 298 days and the Trial Court ought

¶21

not to have dismissed the application for condonation of delay., Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that

¶22

the very suit has become infructuous because of the subsequent developments. The suit is one for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff except under due process of law. The title of the defendants in the suit is admitted. All that the plaintiff would plead is that he is in permissive possession of the

¶23

property and the defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession in execution of a decree in O.S.No. 244 of 1986 which, according to him, does not relate to the suit property.

¶24

2/6

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶27

Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the respondents /

¶28

defendants in the suit would submit that the respondents have already launched proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the same are pending before the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE), Mayiladuthurai. According to him, once the temple authorities have taken steps for eviction of the plaintiff under

¶29

Section 78, the prayer for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession except under due process of law does not survive.

¶30

dispute the statement made by the counsel with regard to the pendency of

¶31

the proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and

¶32

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶33

The said statement made by the learned counsel for the

¶34

respondents to the effect that the proceedings under Section 78 pending on

¶35

3/6

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶38

the file of the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE) is recorded and all these civil revision petitions are dismissed as the suit itself has become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

¶39

closed.

¶40

15.12.2020
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking.
To:
The District Munsif Court,
Sirkali.

¶41

4/6

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶44

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶45

5/6

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

C.R.P(PD)Nos. 3393, 3395 & 3396 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 19160 of 2018

¶48

15.12.2020

¶49

6/6

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Vijayan v. Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Kumarasingarachariar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayan v. Uoo.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sam.Kumarasingarachariar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Jayasamaraj Vs Vaihnavi

Chinnasamy Vs Muniyammal

Padma Vs Vijayalakshmi

Mithiles Sharma Vs Subbarayan

I.S.Selvagandhi Vs K.G.Umasankari

D.Mani Vs P.Yuvarajan