The Madurai Bench allowed a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, setting aside the lower appellate court's decree and restoring the decision of the trial court in a suit concerning property rights of a temple and family heirs.
The impugned judgment and decree set aside; trial court decision restored; no cost awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SA(MD). No.317 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Eighteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN
SA(MD). No.317 of 2010
...Appellant/Respondent/ Plaintiff
(Appellant's Trustee is substituted court order dated 23/03/2022 made in C.M.P(MD)No.1507 of 2022)
Vs
(R6 TO R8 are SUO MOTU impleaded as LRS of the Deceased R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vide Court Order dated 11.02.22 made IN SA(MD).NO.317/2010 )
1/3
SA(MD). No.317 of 2010
Prayer :-
Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 01/02/2008 in A.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul reversing the judgment and decree dated 07/12/2006 in O.S.No.811 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
Decree:-
This Second Appeal came up for hearing on date, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of First Instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.H. Lakshmi Shankar for Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.P.Subbaraj,Advocate for the 2nd to 4th respondents, and Mr.B.Ramanathan,Advocate for the 5th respondent and Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan,Advocate for the 6th to 8th respondents, this court while allowing the appeal, doth order and decree as follows:i)That the impugned judgment and decree be and hereby is setaside and the decision of the trial court is restored and the Second Appeal is allowed.
ii)That the impugned judgment will be binding only on the legal heirs of the first defendant in their individual capacity and it will not have any bearing on the claim of Devanga Chettiar Community if any and the same is left open.
iii) That there be no cost in the Second Appeal.
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
To
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
2/3
SA(MD). No.317 of 2010
6.The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Department, Chithayankottai
Copy To The Section Officer, Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.S. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate ( SR-19110[F] dated 18/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.H. LAKSHMI SHANKAR, Advocate ( SR-19255[F] dated 19/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.B. RAMANATHAN, Advocate ( SR-19438[F] dated 19/04/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-19545[F] dated 19/04/2022 )
ORDER DATED 18/04/2022
DECREE
SA(MD).No.317 of 2010
Allowing the SA(MD).No.317 of 2010 Prefered against the judgment and decree dated 01/02/2008 in A.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul reversing the judgment and decree dated 07/12/2006 in O.S.No.811 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
MGJ(15.06.2022) 3P 13C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, reversing the trial court's decision, should be set aside?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arulmigu Chellandiamman Thirukovil Authoor Village Chittayankottai (represented by Sonsof A.Balasubramanian)
R.Jeyaram
The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Chennnai
The Revenue Divisional Officer Dindigul
The Thasildar Dindigul
The Assistant Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Department Chithayankottai
G.R. SWAMINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
