In a second appeal regarding rights to perform temple poojas, the Madurai bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove they were performing poojas at the time of filing the suit and noting the abolition of hereditary priesthood under TN Act 2 of 1971.
The Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
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.(MD) No.761 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A. (MD) No.761 of 2008
1.Subramania Pattar
2.Gomathi Ammal ... Appellants
-vs-
1.Arunachalam
2.Sethuramalingam
3.Arul Migu Sankaranarayana Devasthanam, represented through its Executive Officer, Sankarankoil – 627 756, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 08.03.2008, passed in A.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Sankarankoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.12.2006, passed in O.S.No.352 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil.
_____________ Page 1 of 8_
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
For Appellants : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel, for Mrs.A.Bhuvaneswari.
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh For Respondent 3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to perform poojas in the suit temple as per the suit schedule and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the said right. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
Page 2 of 8
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
time of death of Sankara Pattar, male heirs, namely, defendants 1 and 2 were minors, the first plaintiff - husband of Sankara Pattar's daughter was allowed to perform pooja and he had been doing poojas in the temple as such. All-ofa-sudden, the defendants 1 and 2 made an attempt to interfere with the first plaintiff's right to perform pooja in the suit temple by claiming that they obtained an order from the third defendant for performing pooja in the place of Sankara Pattar. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for the above said relief.
Page 3 of 8
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
also claimed that the defendants 1 and 2 have been doing pooja in the temple from 17.09.2005 onwards. Therefore, it was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs were not performing pooja on the date of the presentation of the plaint and as a consequence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.
Page 4 of 8
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
Page 5 of 8
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
suit temple only as a substitute for Maragatha Ammal. After the death of Maragatha Ammal, the first plaintiff was not entitled to perform pooja as a substitute. In view of the abolition of hereditary priest-ship by amendment to Section 56 of the said Act under Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1971, the second second plaintiff was also not entitled to claim any right to perform poojas in the suit temple as a heir of Maragatha Ammal. In such circumstances, the declaration sought for in respect of the plaintiffs' right to perform pooja in the suit temple could not be granted and the same was rightly negatived by the Courts below. In fact, the Courts below relied on the admission of P.W.1 that the defendants 1 and 2 had been performing pooja as per the orders passed by the temple authorities under Ex.P-2. Therefore, the fact of performing of pooja by the plaintiffs on the date of presentation of the plaint was not at all proved. Hence, the conclusion reached by the Courts below was in accordance with law and I do not see any perversity in the said finding. Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed.
12.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dixit
_____________ Page 6 of 8_
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
To:
Page 7 of 8
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dixit
S.A.(MD) No.761 of 2008
12.07.2024
_____________ Page 8 of 8_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to perform poojas in the temple as legal heirs despite the abolition of hereditary priest-ship.
Whether the plaintiffs successfully proved they were performing poojas on the date of filing the plaint.
Whether the Courts below were correct in dismissing the suit due to lack of proof and statutory abolition of hereditary priesthood.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subramania Pattar
Gomathi Ammal
Arunachalam
Sethuramalingam
Arul Migu Sankaranarayana Devasthanam
S.SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
