Second Appeal where the appellant, previously a tenant, challenged the dismissal of her suit to declare temple property as gramanatham and seek injunction. High Court upheld lower courts' dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction and unclean hands.
Second Appeal dismissed; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs awarded to appellant.
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.
S.A.No.50 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No. 50 of 2024 &
C.M.P. No. 1332 of 2024
Nirmala Devi
...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Executive Office, Arulmighu Agatheeswarar Temple, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. ...Respondents
1/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.335 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 28.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.4561 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. S.Sadasharam For Respondents : Dr. S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff who has been unsuccessful before the Courts below
is the appellant before this Court challenging the Judgement passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in A.S.No.335 of 2018 in and by which the learned Judge has confirmed the Judgement and Decree passed by the XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The facts are set out herein below with the parties being referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
2/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
declaration that the suit property is gramanatham and for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, employees, subordinates from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Dakshinamoorthy was in enjoyment of the suit property and on his death, his wife, the plaintiff's mother-in-law was in enjoyment of the same. After her lifetime, the plaintiff's husband Nagarajan and the plaintiff were in possession of the suit property. The said Nagarajan died on 28.11.2007, leaving behind the surviving plaintiff and their son Narenthiran as his legal heirs.
3/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
she was issued with a notice dated 16.12.2015, asking her to showcause as to why she should not be evicted from the suit property. The notice was issued by the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff had immediately contacted the 3rd defendant and she was adviced to pay monthly rents and arrears of rents.
4/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The payment of electricity charges or property tax would not confer any title over the plaintiff. Since there were arrears in the payment of rent, the 3rd defendant had initiated proceedings under Section 78 (2) of the H.R. & C.E. Act before the 1st defendant, against the said Sakunthala. Though notice was received on the plaintiff, she had not appeared before the 1st defendant.
5/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
“(i)Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the prayer A.?
(ii)Whether the suit property belongs to the temple ?
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is a trespasser?
(iv)Whether the plaintiff is estopped from denying title of temple in suit property?
(v)Whether the suit is barred U/s. 108 of T.N.H.R. & C.E. Act?
(vi)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for?
(vii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
(viii)Whether D3 is entitled to exemplary cost?
(ix)To What other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. On the side of the defendants one Jayaprakash Narayanan was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 were marked.
the arguments submitted held that the revenue records, namely, Ex.A.2
6/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
which is the extract of the settlement register would clarify the property as a gramanatham and the names of Sakunthala and Nagarajan are found. However, with reference to utilisation of the land, it would describe it as super structure and it appears that the said Sakunthala's name was inserted only on 31.08.1993. The learned Judge held that the revenue entries would not confer title over the property. The property register, Ex.B.7 maintained by the 3rd defendant clarifies the land as Punja Land and it is leased out and the suit property finds place in property register.
7/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
during the cross examination of the plaintiff as P.W.1 that she has come out with the truth. The plaintiff by setting up a separate title to the property has denied the title of the temple. Therefore, the suit came to be dismissed.
8/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
and her husband, Nagarajan who had also died on 28.11.2007 leaving behind the plaintiff and her son Narenthiran. The plaintiff has therefore come to the Court suppressing the fact that she and her predecessor in title were tenants under the temple. It is only in her cross examination as P.W.1 that she has admitted that they were tenants in respect of the suit property.
9/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
title of the temple to the property has given a ground to the authorities to initiate eviction proceedings and the plaintiff has also contesting the said proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff who has suppressed the true facts and come to Court with unclean hands would not entitle to the relief of injunction.
dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
23.01.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
To
1.The XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
10/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
2.The XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
11/12
S.A.No.50 of 2024
S.A.No. 50 of 2024
23.01.2024
12/12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare suit property as gramanatham or grant injunction when tenant status is admitted.
Whether an appellant with unclean hands due to suppressing tenancy facts is entitled to injunction relief.
Whether the Second Appeal should be allowed against confirmed judgments dismissing the suit.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nirmala Devi
The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai
The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department Nungambakkam, Chennai
Arulmighu Agatheeswarar Temple, Villivakkam, Chennai
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
