Dismissed

Arulmighu Vadakkuvasal Chelliamman, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC9 Feb 2023REV.APLC(MD)/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a review application filed to challenge a second appeal judgment regarding the status of a Nair community as a denomination. The Court held that there were no pleadings establishing the community as a denomination in the original suit and found the grounds amounted to a re-argument, exceeding review scope.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application was dismissed. No costs awarded.

Arulmighu Vadakkuvasal Chelliamman, Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 02.02.2023

¶4

JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 09 .02.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

REV.APLC(MD)No.164 of 2022 in SA(MD).No.330 of 2005

¶8

1.Arulmighu Vadakkuvasal Chelliamman Bhadrakali Temple Trust Thirunainarkurichy Represented by it's Trustee

¶9

2.Mohanakumaran Nair

¶10

the present President of 1^st petitioner Trust Mohana Sathanam, Thirunainarkurichy, Kadiapatanum Village Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District

¶11

3.B.Sasikumar

¶12

Secretary of 1^st Petitioner Trust Vazhaviagathu Puthan Veedu Thirunainarkurichy, Kadiapatanum Village Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District

¶13

4.K.J.Sreekumar

¶14

Treasurer of the 1^st Petitioner Trust Karungalivilai, Kadiapatanum Village Kalkulam Taluk Kanyakumari District

¶15

....Appellants/Petitioners

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

¶19

1.The Assistant Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Administration Department) Suchindrum, Kanyakumari District

¶20

2.The Commissioner H.R.& C.E. Department Madras

¶21

3.T.V.Kumaran Thambi

¶22

(Correspondent of Othapanavilai Hr.Sec.School) Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil Village Agashthiswaram Taluk Kanyakumari District ....Respondents/Respondents

¶23

(Cause title amended vide Court order dated 14.11.2022)

¶24

Prayer:- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC r/w. Section 114 of CPC to review the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2022 passed in SA(MD).No.330 of 2005 and rehear and allow it by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2004 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram and confirm the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1999 passed in O.S.No.213/1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and thereby decree the said O.S.No.213/1998 as prayed for.

¶25

For Appellants : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The present Review Application has been filed to review the order passed by this Court on 07.06.2022 in S.A(MD).No.330 of 2005.

¶30

2.The learned counsel appearing for the Review Applicant had contended that the Nair Community of Thirunainarkurichy Village by themselves constituted a denomination and records have also been filed to establish the fact that they have established the suit temple. According to the learned counsel for the Review Applicant, this aspect has not been taken into consideration which dismissing the second appeal. Hence, he prayed for allowing the review application.

¶31

3.I have considered the grounds in the review application and also

¶32

the pleadings of the parties in the plaint and written statement which has culminated in S.A(MD).No.330 of 2005.

¶33

4.There are no pleadings in the plaint to the effect that the Nair Community of Thirunainarkurichy Village constituted a denomination. Even according to the learned counsel for the review applicant, it is

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

reflected only the pleadings of a different suit which has been marked as an exhibit. Therefore, I do not find any ground to review the order in the above second appeal. The grounds of review will clearly disclose that the review applicant is attempting to re-argue the appeal which is clearly outside the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.

¶37

5.Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶38

09.02.2023

¶39

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No msa

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶43

msa

¶44

Pre-Delivery Judgment made in REV.APLC(MD)No.164 of 2022 in SA(MD).No.330 of 2005

¶45

09.02.2023

¶46

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

Arulmighu Vadakkuvasal Chelliamman, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmighu Vadakkuvasal Chelliamman, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Muthusamy, Vs K. Ramasamy

Durgadevi Vs R. Viswanath

R. Bharathi Vs Janab Mohammed Salavudeen

Meena Vs Anand

T.Kavitha Vs Sri Senthurandavar Auto Finance

Syed Hussain, Vs W.Thanislas