Dismissed¶53

Mrs.K.Hemalatha v. Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple and 7 others

Madras HC15 Sept 2025A/4005/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court 2025; A.No.4005 of 2025; CS 403 of 2013; CS 284 of 2013; impleadment application dismissed; third party; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; K.Hemalatha; Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple; Power of Attorney 20.08.1999 Doc 239 of 1999 Sowcarpet; Ryotwari land; Anaadinam land; Waste Dry Land; Abolition Act; Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948 Section 11; Assistant Settlement Officer Tiruvannamalai; SR. No. 3 of 1998; patta cancellation 14.02.2014; Principal Secretary Commissioner of Land Administration; W.P. 8664 of 1997; W.P. 5606 of 2002; abuse of process; Additional Master No.I; evidence 22.09.2025; Dr. R.N.MANJULA.

What did the court decide?

None; the impleadment application was dismissed with no costs. ¶53

Mrs.K.Hemalatha Vs Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple and 7 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impleadment application was dismissed with no costs.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the third-party applicant K. Hemalatha, claiming through a Power of Attorney executed by third parties, should be impleaded as the 8th defendant in C.S. No. 403 of 2013.

¶25

Court's answer

The applicant's claimed predecessors-in-title, Radhabai and her son Jayakumar, had themselves not established any title to the property.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is trying to abuse the process of the Court by making undue claims under an alleged Power of Attorney executed by third parties who themselves have no title or right in the property.

¶52

Key takeaways

Though the 14.02.2014 proceedings cancelling the patta were served on the applicant, he had not challenged them, undermining his impleadment claim.ratio¶50-51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dr. R.N.MANJULA, J.), 15.09.2025 — A. No. 4005 of 2025 in C.S. No. 403 of 2013 & C.S. No. 284 of 2013. Impleadment application under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC by third party K. Hemalatha, claiming under a Deed of Power of Attorney dated 20.08.1999 (Doc. No. 239 of 1999, SRO Sowcarpet) executed by third parties, to be added as 8th defendant in the Temple's title suit — DISMISSED, no costs. Findings: the claimed predecessors (Thiru.Punniyakodi Raju, patta 1904; adopted daughter Tmt.Radhabai; son Jayakumar, W.P. No.8664 of 1997) never established title; the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai's order dated 10.12.1999 (SR. No. 3 of 1998) under Section 11 of Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948 had been set aside and the patta grant cancelled by proceedings of the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration dated 14.02.2014, which the applicant, though served a copy, had not challenged; the application amounted to abuse of the Court's process. Suit context: declaration of title, declaration that the sale deed dated 06.01.1990 in favour of defendants 5 and 6 is null and void, and permanent injunction; respondents 5 and 6 set ex parte. Parties directed to appear before learned Additional Master No.I on 22.09.2025 for recording of evidence. No precedent cases cited.

¶1

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

K.Hemalatha

...Applicant

Vs.

1.Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple Rep. by its Executive Officer Kolathur, Chennai-600099.

¶11

2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶12

3.The Collector of Chennai Chennai District, Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar

¶14

Perambur – Purasawalkam Taluk Chennai-600011.

¶15

5.The Sub-Registrar Sembium Sub Registrar Office Perambur, Chennai-600011.

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶19

6.R.Vetri

¶20

7.N.Sivaraman

¶21

8.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St. George Chennai-600009. ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to implead the applicant herein as 8 th defendant in the above C.S. No. 403 of 2013.

¶23

For applicant : M/s.Anish Gopi

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This application has been filed by a third party to implead herself as 8 th defendant in CS. No. 403 of 2013.

¶26

2 . The plaintiff is the Temple and the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 7 are

¶27

Government defendants/respondents and the respondents 5 and 6 are private defendants/respondents, who have been set exparte.

¶28

3. The suit had been filed for declaration of title and also for declaration of the sale deed dated 06.01.1990 executed in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 are null and void along with the relief of permanent injunction.

¶29

Page 2 of 7

¶30

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

¶31

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶32

4 . Now this applicant has submitted that he is a bonafide purchaser

¶33

of the property and he has acquired interest over the same by way of Deed of Power of Attorney dated 20.08.1999 vide Document No. 239 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sowcarpet.

¶34

4.1. He further submitted that the property has been originally classified as 'Ryotwari land' and a patta has been granted by Arulmighu Somanatha Swamy Devastanam to Thiru.Punniyakodi Raju in the year 1904. Subsequent to his demise in the year 1958, the property was inherited through adoption and inheritance to one Tmt.Radhabai, who is his adopted daughter. The revenue records stood in the name of Radhabai.

¶35

4.2. During the Survey Settlement Operations under the Abolition

¶36

Act, no notice was issued to the predecessor in title and the lands have been wrongly classified as 'Waste Dry Land'. Radhabai, who persuaded to get a legal remedy and get a patta has not been successful in getting the patta. Hence, after her demise in the year 1984, her son, Jayakumar continued the effort by way of filing a writ petition in W.P. No.8664 of 1997.

¶37

Page 3 of 7

¶38

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

¶39

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶40

4.3. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai in his order dated 10.12.1999 has allowed the claim of the applicant under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948 by confirming the rights of the applicant's predecessor in interest.

¶41

4.4. As the property has been wrongly classified as 'Anaadinam land' and the Assistant Settlement Officer has also wrongly recorded the property as 'Ryotwari land' instead of 'Ryoti land'. Hence, the applicant is a necessary party.

¶42

Discussion: -

¶43

5. The applicant claims as though he has got interest in the property by virtue of the alleged Power of Attorney dated 20.08.1999 executed by some third parties, who claimed interest in the suit property. In fact, some of the parties to the power of attorney have already filed

¶44

W.P. 5606 of 2002 in which an order has been passed directing the 1s t respondent /the Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration to consider the documents produced by those petitioners and pass an order. Such an order has been passed on 09.07.2013.

¶45

Page 4 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶48

However subsequent to the order dated 09.07.2013, a proceedings has been issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration on 14.02.2014 by setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in SR. No. 3 of 1998 dated 10.12.1999. The above order dated 14.02.2014 is to the effect of cancelling the order granting

¶49

patta in favour of the alleged predecessor in title of this applicant.

¶50

6 . Despite the order has been passed on 14.02.2014 and a copy of

¶51

that has also been served upon the applicant, he has not challenged the same sofar.

¶52

7 . One thing which is now clear is that the applicant who seeks to title through one Radhabai and his son Jayakumar have themselves not established any title in the property. The applicant is trying to abuse the process of the Court by making undue claims by virtue of an alleged Power of Attorney executed by third parties, who themselves do not have any title or right in the property.

¶53

8 . In view of the above reasons, this application is dismissed. No costs.

¶54

9. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the Page 5 of 7

¶55

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

¶56

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶57

parties, the matter is sent back to the learned Additional Master No.I for directing the parties to appear before the learned Additional Master No.I on 22.09.2025, for recording of evidence.

15.09.2025

Maya

Page 6 of 7

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

¶62

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶63

Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶64

Maya

¶65

A. No. 4005 of 2025 and C.S. No. 403 of 2013 and C.S. No. 284 of 2013

¶66

Dated : 15.09.2025

¶67

Page 7 of 7

¶68

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
A patta was granted by Arulmighu Somanatha Swamy Devastanam to Thiru.Punniyakodi Raju in the year 1904.¶34
Prior proceeding
After Punniyakodi Raju's demise in 1958, the property was inherited through adoption and inheritance by Tmt.Radhabai, his adopted daughter, in whose name the revenue records stood.¶34
Prior proceeding
During Survey Settlement Operations under the Abolition Act, no notice was issued to the predecessor in title and the lands were wrongly classified as 'Waste Dry Land'; Radhabai was unsuccessful in obtaining a patta.¶36
Prior proceeding
After Radhabai's demise in 1984, her son Jayakumar continued the effort by filing W.P. No.8664 of 1997.¶36
Prior proceeding
The applicant acquired claimed interest through a Deed of Power of Attorney dated 20.08.1999, Document No. 239 of 1999, Sub Registrar Office, Sowcarpet.¶33
Prior proceeding
Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai, by order dated 10.12.1999 (SR. No. 3 of 1998) allowed the claim under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1948, confirming rights of the applicant's predecessor in interest.¶40
Prior proceeding
Some of the parties to the Power of Attorney had earlier filed W.P. 5606 of 2002.¶43
Prior proceeding
By an order dated 09.07.2013, the Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration was directed to consider the documents produced by those petitioners and pass an order.¶44
Prior proceeding
C.S. No. 403 of 2013 was filed by the Temple (plaintiff) for declaration of title, declaration that the sale deed dated 06.01.1990 executed in favour of defendants 5 and 6 is null and void, and permanent injunction.¶28
Prior proceeding
Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 7 are Government defendants and respondents 5 and 6 are private defendants, who have been set ex parte.¶26-27
Prior proceeding
Subsequent to the 09.07.2013 order, proceedings were issued by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration on 14.02.2014, setting aside the Assistant Settlement Officer's order in SR. No. 3 of 1998 dated 10.12.1999.¶48
Prior proceeding
The 14.02.2014 proceedings cancelled the order granting patta in favour of the alleged predecessor in title of the applicant.¶48-49
Prior proceeding
A copy of the 14.02.2014 order was served upon the applicant, who has not challenged it so far.¶50-51

Mrs.K.Hemalatha v. Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.K.Hemalatha v. Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh Kumar.C Vs C.Surendranath

S.Bharathiraja Vs R.Subramanian (Deceased) 1.Kalavathy Subramanian and 12 others

Mrs. Rajini Balakrishnan Vs K.Madhavan Naidu (Decd.)

J.Joseph Suresh, Vs Mr. K.Subramani and 2 others

Dr. P. Manju Pushpa Vs Prof. Dr. Rupa Gunaseelan

Bashya Kara Adi Chenna Kesava Perumal Temple Vs S.K.Dharmalingam and 9 Others