Second appeal challenging concurrent findings that raised only questions of fact regarding the private or public nature of a temple trust and the maintainability of the suit. The court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
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. 722 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A. No. 722 of 2012
1.Vasantha Ramasamy 2. Pugazhendhi ...Appellants Vs. A.M.Apparswamy Temple Rep. By its Sole Hereditary Trustee P.R.Sathish Kumar No.171, Royapettah High Road Mylapore, Chennai-4. ...Respondent (The Hereditary Trustee of the Temple is substituted as P.R.Sathish Kumar instead of P.V.Rajkumar (deceased) vide Court order dated 06.09.2024 made in C.M.P. No. 2305 of 2022 in S.A. No .722 of 2012)
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2011 made in A.S. No. 379 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 made in O.S. No. 1383 of 2009 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.T.Arulraj For Respondent : Mr.G.Sugumaran
1/4
S.A. No. 722 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed only by raising the following questions, by claiming that they are substantial questions of law. For a better clarification the questions raised by the appellant are extracted below:-
charitable trust?
maintainable in law?
The very questions itself would indicate that they are complete questions of fact and they do not involve anything about law. As the second appeal cannot be maintained on the pure question of facts, the second appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
05.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No Maya
2/4
S.A. No. 722 of 2012
To
3/4
S.A. No. 722 of 2012
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya
S.A. No. 722 of 2012
05.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proposed substantial questions of law on the trust's private or public character and suit maintainability justified a second appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vasantha Ramasamy
Pugazhendhi
A.M.Apparswamy Temple Rep. By its Sole Hereditary Trustee P.R.Sathish Kumar
R.N.Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
