Dismissed

Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare Sangam v. S. Sampantham

Madras HC17 Aug 2023CRP/2810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to implead the State Government and Hindu Religious Endowment Department officials as parties in a suit regarding temple property. The court held that these officials were not necessary parties based on prior adjudications and the specific nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the main suit.

Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023 and

¶7

CMP.No. 17357 of 2023

¶8

Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare Sangam a registered Society by its President V.P. Appadurai.

¶9

V.P.Appadurai

¶10

B.Shanmugasundaram 4. V.V.Sakthivel

¶11

K.Sivaprakasam

¶12

S. Ganesan

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

S. Sampantham

¶16

T.S. Srikumar

¶17

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the District Collector Erode District. 4.The District Revenue Officer, Erode. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode.

¶18

6.The Tahsildar, Perundurai.

¶19

7.The Village Administrative Officer Goundachipalayam 'B' Village. Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

¶20

1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶22

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶23

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Erode.

¶24

… Respondents

¶25

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prays to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 31.03.2023 made in IA.No. 02 of 2022 in OS.No. 141 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perundurai.

¶26

For petitioners : Mr. M. Guruprasad For Respondents : Mr.Rakhi

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the

¶29

fair and decretal order, dated 31.03.2023 made in IA.No. 02 of 2022 in O.S.No. 141 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perundurai.

¶30

2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶32

2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that they have filed the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2014 before the District Munsif, Perundurai, for declaration, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. The defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. While pending the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 2 of 2022 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, seeking to implead the State Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its District Collector, Erode, The District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Tahsildar, Perundurai VAO, Gaundachipalayam B Village, The Commissioner HR & CE and the Joint Commissioner HR & CE as defendants in the suit. After perusing the records, the trialCourt dismissed the application by order dated 31.03.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/plaintiffs have come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶33

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2 and 6 to 8 stating that the respondents/proposed parties are not a party in O.S.No. 15 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Perundurai and therefore, the Government has no knowledge about the case. The petitioners have filed

¶34

3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶36

several cases against the Government and others in the same property in the same prayer. The petitioners had filed the suit against the Government before the Court below in O.S.No. 132 of 2007, O.S.No. 29 of 2013 and O.S.No. 29 of 2016 for the same suit property. The Government is a party in O.S.No.132 of 2007 and O.S.No. 29 of 2013 and O.S.No. 29 of 2016. The suit in O.S.No. 132 of 2007 was dismissed by the Court below on 19.09.2014 and the petitioners had preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 18 of 2014 and the appeal was also dismissed on 03.09.2015. Therefore, the Government and HR&CE are not necessary parties in this suit. The issues in the suit are only between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1&2 alone, not between the plaintiffs and the Government. The present suit property is entirely different from the suit property in O.S.No.15 of 1999. The temples situated in the suit properties are under the control of 8th and 9th respondents. Therefore, the Government is not a necessary party in this suit proceedings. Hence, the respondents/defendants pray to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶39

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

5. On perusal of the petition and counter averments, it is seen that the respondents obtained decree in O.S.No. 15 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Perundurai to the effect that the suit properties and the temple are denomination temple of the petitioners/plaintiffs and therefore, the Government is not a party to the suit proceedings. But the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that it is very necessary to implead the Government as a party to this suit proceedings to substantiate their case. In respect of the suit properties, some proceedings are pending and the respondents 3 to 7 and their presence are not necessary in the suit proceedings for proper adjudication.

¶41

6. It is further seen that the 2^nd respondent contended that the respondents/defendants are not a party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No. 15 of 1999. Therefore, the decree of the said suit is not binding the

¶42

5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶44

respondents herein. The presence of the respondents 3 to 7 are not necessary to the above suit proceedings. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No. 132 of 2007 for the same suit property against the Government and some other suits. The suit in O.S.No.132 of 2007 was dismissed after full trial on 19.09.2014, against which the petitioners/plaintiffs had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2014 and the same was also dismissed on 03.09.2015 and therefore, the government and HR&CE are not necessary parties to the suit proceedings.

¶45

7. The suit was filed by the petitioners/

¶46

plaintiffs for declaring that the 1^st plaintiff Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare Sangam is the absolute owners of the suit properties, restraining the defendants from in any manner either trespassing into the suit properties of disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties to the plaintiffs by way of permanent injunction and declaring that the settlement deed dated 31.01.2014 executed in favour of the 2^nd defendant by the 1^st defendant in respect of the suit properties which is registered as Document No. 250 of 2014 on the file of the District Registrar, Erode, is null and void and

¶47

6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶49

unenforceable.

¶50

8. While that being the case, for deciding the issue of ownership and title over the suit property and to decide the validity of the alleged settlement deed dated 31.01.2014, the proposed parties/Government and the HR&CE Officials are not necessary parties to the present suit proceedings. Hence, the trial Court perusing the records, has rightly dismissed the application and this Court is not inclined to set aside the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶51

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial Court can proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit in O.S.No. 141 of 2014 pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Perundurai, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

17.08.2023

¶53

Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No MSM

¶54

7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶56

¶57

The District Collector Erode District.

¶58

2.The District Revenue Officer, Erode. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode. 4.The Tahsildar, Perundurai. 5.The Village Administrative Officer Goundachipalayam 'B' Village. Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

¶59

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶60

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Erode.

¶61

The Section Officer, High Court, Madras.

¶62

8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

¶64

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

MSM

CRP.No. 2810 of 2023

17.08.2023

9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare Sangam v. S. Sampantham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallipurathampalayam Village Sengunthar Community Welfare Sangam v. S. Sampantham

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

M.Shanthi Vs Mahendran

Arasu Vs Rakhee Sharma

K.Veerappan Vs Periyasamy(Died) 1) Murugaiyan

S. Durairajan Vs the Secretary / Special Officer

Vatchala Vs Devaki

Reshma Vs a.M.Shahul Hameed