Dismissed

Chinnakaruppanna Devar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Sept 2021SA/326/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of idols excavated from the plaintiff's land, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff, claiming the idols belonged to his family, could not prove the temple exclusive belonged to him, and the idols were confirmed to be temple property based on the written statement and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Chinnakaruppanna Devar Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTIC E R.HEMALATHA

¶5

S.A.No.326 of 2009

¶6

Chinnakaruppana Thevar (Deceased)

¶7

1.Parameswaran

¶8

2.Radhakrishnan ...Appellants/

¶9

LRS Of the deceased sole Appellant

¶10

(Appellants 1 & 2 brought on record

¶11

as LRs of the deceased sole appellant

¶12

vide order of this Court dated 30.09.2015

¶13

made in M.P.Nos.1 to 3/2015 in S.A.No.326/2009)

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶16

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District.

¶17

3.The Revenue Tahsildar, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. ... Respondents/Defendants

¶18

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 02.06.2008 passed in A.S. No.3 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram, Erode District, confirming the decree and judgment dated 19.10.2006 passed in O.S. No.199 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, Erode District.

¶19

For Appellants : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.Edwin Prabakar Government Advocate

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below, has filed the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant died. Therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded as appellants 1 and 2.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court and at appropriate places, their ranking in the present appeal would also be indicated.

¶25

The case of the plaintiffs in nutshell is as follows: The plaintiffs and his father renovated Arulmigu Umamageshwarar Temple in Survey No.457, Alangium Village, Dharapuram Taluk and also conducted kumbabishekam of the temple. The plaintiff, in order to safeguard the idols of Umamaheshwarar and Maheshwari made of panchalogas, used to keep them in his house and would take them to the temple during festival seasons. While so, the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, seized the idols from the plaintiff and handed over the same to the Tahsildar, Dharapuram, on the premise that the idols belonging to the Umamaheshwarar temple were excavated from the land of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants to return the idols back to him, the defendants did not oblige and hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the suit idols absolutely belong to his family and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants.

¶26

The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that since the temple is in dilapidated condition, the plaintiff kept the suit idols Umamageshwarar and Mageswari in his house and subsequently, attempted to sell them. Since the suit idols are excavated from the land of the plaintiff and also made of panchalogas, the plaintiff has no right to keep the idols in his house. They have further contended that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department has not been impleaded as a party to the suit and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶27

After framing necessary issues and after full contest, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide its decree and judgment dated 19.10.2006. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.3 of 2007 before the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, after analysing the evidence on record and the findings of the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

¶28

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

¶29

Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law:

¶30

"Have not the Courts below committed an error of law on the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the written statement filed by the defendants that the idols form part of the temple and kept with the plaintiff in view of the dilapidated condition of the temple?"

¶31

At the outset, it may be observed that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit idols made of panchaloga absolutely belong to his family and for recovery of possession of the same from the respondents/defendants. The Trial Court observed that though the plaintiff contended that he was keeping the idols in his house and was worshiping the same, it was seen from Ex.B1, a letter dated 14.05.1988, through which the plaintiff handed over the idols to the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharapuram, that both the idols were mutilated and hence there was no possibility of worshiping the said idols either in the temple or in the house of the plaintiff.

¶32

According to the plaintiff both the idols belong to the temple. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the temple exclusively belongs to his family. On this ground alone the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be dismissed.

¶33

Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of this Court to the written statement filed on the side of the defendants and contended that since the defendants admitted that the temple is situated in the land of the plaintiff, the suit should have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶34

A careful perusal of the written statement of the third defendant shows that old Siva temple is situated on the northern side of the plaintiff's properties. Nowhere it is stated that either the temple belongs to the family of the plaintiff or it is within the patta land of the plaintiff. It is also seen from the evidence of PW2 that both the idols were excavated from the plaintiff's land while digging a pit for planting coconut saplings. The evidence adduced on the side of the defendants also go to show that based on the complaint given by the villagers, the idols were recovered from the plaintiff. It is further contended on the side of the defendants that the idols were sent to Archaeological Department and the file is still pending. However, as already observed, as per the versions of the plaintiff, idols belong to the temple and therefore he cannot claim exclusive right over the idols and hence, the suit itself is misconceived. Both the Courts below analysed the

¶35

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

¶36

evidence on record and had given cogent reasons for dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and hence, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶42

mtl

¶43

¶44

1.The Sub Judge, The Sub Court, Dharapuram, Erode District.

¶45

2.The District Munsif, The District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, Erode District.

¶46

+1cc to M/s.P.T.Ramadevi, Advocate Sr.46192 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.46691

S.A.No.326 of 2009

br[co]

srg 28/10/2021

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

Chinnakaruppanna Devar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnakaruppanna Devar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasan, Vs Bakthavatchalam

Velammal Vs K Sengodan

K.Sengodan, Vs Velammal

K.Dhanalakshmi Vs S.Kesavaram (Decd)

Canara Bank Chengalpattu Vs M.Kuppusamy

M.Rajamani Vs Shanmughakani