Quashed

A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil v. D.Muthupechi

Madras HC13 Dec 2021CRP(MD)/1014/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an order impleading a trustee as a party in an eviction petition filed by temple trustees, holding he was neither necessary nor proper, but allowed him to adduce evidence on rent receipt.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowing impleadment set aside; 2nd respondent permitted to adduce evidence regarding rent receipt on behalf of 1st respondent.

A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil Vs D.Muthupechi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD) No.5590 of 2019

¶7

A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil, Through its Hereditary Trustees, 1.P.Alaguvel 2.V.Tirupathy @ Venkitasamy Ward No.12, Door No.48, Keelaraja Veethi, Chinnamanur, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶8

.. Petitioners/Respondent/ Petitioners

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.D.Muthupechi .. 1^st Respondent/2^nd respondent Respondent 2.Ramanathan .. 2^nd Respondent/Petitioner/ Third Party

¶11

Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 12.12.2018 made in I.A.No.163/2017 in P.T.No.82/2017 on the file of Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For Respondents : Mr.G.Solai Raja ******

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Trustees of the petitioner/Temple seek to challenge the order dated 12.12.2018, passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai, impleading the 2^nd respondent herein as a party respondent in the proceedings.

¶15

2.The brief facts are as follows:-

¶16

2.1.The petitioner/Temple had filed a petition before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai, against the 1^st

¶17

1/3

¶18

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019

¶19

respondent for evicting her on the ground of wilful default in respect of the rents due for over nine faslis starting from the year 2008. Pending the proceedings, the 2^nd respondent herein had filed an application in I.A.No.163 of 2017 to implead himself as a party to the proceedings. The reason given for seeking to have him impleaded is that he is a Trustee of the revision petitioner/Temple and that he has an order in his favour in respect of the above Temple. All these factors have been suppressed by the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent, and the petition has been collusively filed. He would submit that he is a necessary party to the proceedings.

¶20

3.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai, by his order dated 12.12.2018, has allowed the application on the ground that the trustees representing the revision petitioner Temple have not produced documents to show that they are the trustees whereas, the 2^nd respondent has produced the decree in his favour in O.S.No.280 of 2010 dated 21.04.2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam and the judgment in A.S.No.15 of 2015 against O.S.No.280 of 2010 before the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.

¶21

4.Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by reason of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.635 of 1984, the trustees had to be elected from each branch and there will always be two trustees one representing each branch. Pursuant to the said judgment, the representatives of each clan were being appointed as the trustees and the present trustees are one who have instituted the above petition. The petition has been filed by the revision petitioner as the 1^st respondent herein is in arrears of rent. The petition for impleading appears to be a collusive one, made with an intention of defeating the right of the Temple.

¶22

5.The learned counsel for the respondents would fairly concede that the persons, who have instituted the petition, are the trustees of the petitioner Temple. In these circumstances, there is no necessity for the 2^nd respondent to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents while arguing had submitted that some of the rents due for some faslis have been received by the 2^nd respondent and this had to be stated before the Court.

¶23

6.In view of the above this Court is of the opinion that the 2^nd respondent is neither necessary, nor a proper party to the proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai, dated 12.12.2018 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. It is made clear that the 2^nd respondent can adduce evidence on behalf of the 1^st respondent, in case he has received the rent whereby, the claim of the 1^st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent that she has paid the rent, the 2^nd respondent can get

¶24

2/3

¶25

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019

¶26

into the box and support the 1^st respondent that she is not in arrears in respect of certain faslis where he has received arrears. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

// True Copy //

abr

Note:-

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.

¶31

TO: 1.The District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.

¶32

2.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai.

¶33

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1014 of 2019 Dated: 13.12.2021

¶34

GM(CO) GC(31.01.2022) 3P 3C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil v. D.Muthupechi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil v. D.Muthupechi

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

The Assistant Director of Hand Vs R.Athma Rao

Thahakhan, S/O.Late.Naina Vs Farithulla Khan

R.Sivarasu Vs Senthilkumar

Godwin Bright,S/O.Ambrose Vs Vijayamma,D/O.Parvathi Amma

A/M.Bhagavathi Amman Tirukoil Vs K.Thavamani Servai (Died)

Ramaraj Vs Parasuraman