Dismissed¶73

Idol Sri Balasubramaniyaswamy, v. Arukkani Ammal & Marappa

Madras HC7 Mar 2025AS(MD)/76/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple suit maintainability; Executive Officer competency to sue; hereditary trustee authorisation; Order VII Rule 11 CPC plaint rejection; Section 96 CPC appeal against plaint-rejection decree; Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode 2003-1-L.W. 386; Padmavathi AS(MD)No.143 of 2014; Sri Kalyana Venkataramanaswamy CDJ 2023 MHC 4792 declined to follow; Thomas Educational & Charitable Trust 2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 801 distinguished; curable irregularity; impleadment of trustees; devotee person interested; Karur; Vennaimalai; Balasubramaniyaswamy Devasthanam; O.S No.101 of 2016; I.A.No.397 of 2017; Principal District Court Karur; Madurai Bench.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal suit was dismissed with no costs, with no interference with the impugned decree. ¶73

Idol Sri Balasubramaniyaswamy, Vs Arukkani Ammal & Marappa — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal suit was dismissed with no costs, with no interference with the impugned decree.

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Executive Officer, on his own and without authorisation from the hereditary trustee, instituted the suit (and hence whether the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was warranted).

¶24

Court's answer

Following the Division Bench decision in Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode (2003-1-L.W. 386), a suit instituted by the Executive Officer on his own, without authorisation from the hereditary trustee, is not maintainable; the Executive Officer is not the authority competent to initiate legal proceedings where a hereditary trustee exists.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

Nevertheless, as even a devotee as a person interested can maintain a suit to protect the temple, an Executive Officer too can maintain such a suit; but in such a case he must implead the hereditary trustee/trustees and allege that they are not authorising the filing of the suit - which the Executive Officer here has not done.

¶65

Key takeaways

Though authorisation from the board of trustees is necessary for instituting the suit, a suit filed without such authorisation suffers only a curable irregularity, curable at any stage; when the defendants challenge maintainability, the Executive Officer can produce such authorisation and save the suit from dismissal - a practical approach reconciling the apparently conflicting views.ratio¶70
The decision in Thomas Educational & Charitable Trust vs A/M Ekambaranathar Thirukoil (2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 801), relied on by the appellant's counsel, is clearly distinguishable on facts, because there the board of trustees had passed a resolution ratifying the action of the Executive Officer.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019, decided 07.03.2025 (G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman JJ.; judgment by G.R. Swaminathan J.). Appeal under Section 96 CPC by Idol Sri Balasubramaniyaswamy Devasthanam, Vennaimalai, Karur (plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 in I.A.No.397 of 2017 in O.S No.101 of 2016 (Principal District Court, Karur), whereby its plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the instance of the defendants. Held, following the Division Bench decision in Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode (2003-1-L.W. 386): a suit instituted by a temple's Executive Officer on his own, without authorisation from the hereditary trustee, is not maintainable; however, the absence of such authorisation is only a curable irregularity - an Executive Officer may sue to protect the temple's interest and property provided he impleads the hereditary trustee(s), alleges their non-authorisation, and produces the authorisation when maintainability is challenged. Thomas Educational & Charitable Trust (2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 801) distinguished on facts (board resolution had ratified the Executive Officer's action); the Division Bench in Padmavathi (AS(MD)No. 143 of 2014, 02.08.2024) was noted as having declined to follow Sri Kalyana Venkataramanaswamy (CDJ 2023 MHC 4792) and as choosing the Sri Arthanareeswarar ratio, which this Bench follows. Appeal dismissed; no costs.

¶1

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶7

Idol Sri Balasubramaniyaswamy, Sri Balasubramaniyaswamy Devasthanam, Vennaimalai, Karur,

¶8

Rep. by its Executive Officer. ... Appellant / Respondent / Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Arukkani Ammal & Marappa Gounder Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, No.9D/3, Ramakrishnapuram, Karur.

¶11

2.The Correspondent, Cheran Vidhyalaya Matriculation School, Vennaimalai, Kathaparai Post, Karur.

¶12

3.The Correspondent, Cheran Vidhyalaya Higher Secondary School, Vennaimalai, Kathaparai Post, Karur. ... Respondents / Petitioners / Defendants

¶13

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2018 made in I.A.No.397

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶17

of 2017 in O.S No.101 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court,

¶18

Karur.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.S.Madhavan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel, For Mr.S.Gokulraj.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶23

The appellant herein filed O.S No.101 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. The defendants filed I.A No.397 of 2017 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Vide order dated 10.01.2018, the IA was allowed and the plaint came to be rejected. Since such an order amounts to a decree, this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶24

2.The point for determination is whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Executive Officer on his own has instituted the suit in question without authorisation from the hereditary trustee ?.

¶25

2/9

¶26

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

¶27

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶28

3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court

¶29

below erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He submitted that as per the scheme decree, the Executive officer is the competent person to sue and be sued in the name of the temple. It is his specific contention that maintainability of the suit for lack of competency of the Executive Officer to file the suit does not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Since a triable issue has arisen for consideration, it should have been decided only in the main suit as it requires elaborate appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. He prayed for setting aside the decree of the court below and allowing this appeal. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following cases:

¶30

a ) Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramaniasamy Thirukoil vs P. Subramanian (CDJ 2018 MHC 4435)

¶31

b)A.N Kumar vs Arulmighu Arunachaleshwar Devasthanam Thiruvanamalai represented by Executive Officer (CDJ 2011 MHC 1412)

¶32

c)The Idol of Sri Kalyana Venkataramanaswamy, Thanthonimalai rep by Executive Officer/ The Assistant

¶33

3/9

¶34

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

¶35

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶36

Commissioner vs M. Palanivel (CDJ 2023 MHC 4792)

¶37

d)The Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy rep by Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Srirangam vs J.Sriram made in A.S(MD) No. 140 of 2015 vide order dated 13.04.2023

¶38

e)Arulmighu Soundararaja Perumal Thadicombu Chitra Pournami Mandakapadi, Dindigul vs Arulmighu Soundararaja Perumal Thirukoil rep by Executive Officer.S.A.(MD)No.665 of 2023 vide order dated 22.12.2023

¶39

f ) Durgai Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam Rep by K.Jeevanandam vs Idols of Arulmighu Siddhi Ganesar Nataraja Perumal Durgaiamman group Temples, Rep by its Executive Officer A.S.No.397 of 2010 dated 14.12.2022

¶40

4.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the court below rightly rejected the plaint and that the order does not warrant interference. He drew our attention to

¶41

the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2003-1-L.W. 386

¶42

(Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode, Rep. by its present Executive

¶43

4/9

¶44

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

¶45

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶46

Officer, Sri Sabapathy Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi) and contended that when there is a hereditary trustee by name Chokkalingam, he alone is competent to file the suit and that the Executive officer was not competent to initiate legal proceedings. He placed reliance on a catena of subsequent decisions which are as follows:

¶47

1. Kuppusamy vs. A/M Prasanna Vinayagar Thirukoil MANU/TN/3786/2017

¶48

2. Executive Officer, A/M Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil v P. Subramaniam 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 45

¶49

3. B.S Manian vs A/M Yoganarasimhaswami Tirukoil 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 36241

¶50

4. S. Radhabhai vs Bharani Abhisheka Kattalai rep by Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16615

¶51

5. Padmavathi vs The Idol of Sri Renganathaswami, Srirangam, rep.by its Joint Commissioner made in AS(MD)No. 143 of 2014 vide order dated 02.08.2024

¶52

5/9

¶53

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

¶54

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶55

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through

¶56

the evidence on record.

¶57

6.It is not in dispute that the suit temple is under the management of a hereditary trustee. In fact, in Paragraph No.3 of the plaint itself, there is reference to this aspect. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the issue as to the competency of the executive officer to initiate legal proceedings is no longer res intrega . The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in 2003-1-L.W. 386 (Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode, Rep. by its present Executive Officer, Sri Sabapathy Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi) held that it is only the board of trustees in existence at that time who would be competent to initiate legal proceedings and that the executive officer is not the authority competent to initiate legal proceedings. The aforesaid decision has been holding the field and has been relied on in a plethora of judgements of this court. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Padmavathi vs The Idol of Sri Renganathaswami, Srirangam, rep.by its Joint Commissioner made in AS(MD)No. 143 of 2014 vide order dated 02.08.2024 declined to follow Sri Kalyana Venkataramanaswamy relied

¶58

6/9

¶59

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

¶60

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶61

on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Instead, it chose to follow

¶62

the ratio in Sri Arthanareeswarar case.

¶63

7 . The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in

¶64

Thomas Educational & Charitable Trust vs A/M Ekambaranathar Thirukoil rep by its Executive Director reported in 2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 801 is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the board of trustees had passed a resolution ratifying the action of the Executive Officer.

¶65

8.Therefore, the act of the Executive Officer in filing the instant suit without getting authorisation from the hereditary trustee rendered the suit as not maintainable. At the same time, we are not oblivious of the fact that hereditary trustees could also act adverse to the interest of the temple. In such circumstances, even a devotee as a person interested can maintain a suit. If a devotee can maintain a suit, certainly, an Executive Officer can maintain a suit to protect the interest and property of the temple. But in such case, he must implead the hereditary trustee/trustees. He must allege that they are not authorising the filing of the suit. The

¶66

7/9

¶67

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

¶68

A.S.(MD)No.76 of 2019

¶69

Executive Officer has not come out with such a case so far. In our view,

¶70

though authorisation from the board of trustees is necessary for instituting the suit, if a suit is filed without such authorisation, it is only a curable irregularity. This irregularity can be cured at any stage. As and

¶71

when the defendants challenge the maintainability of the suit, the Executive Officer can produce such an authorisation and that would save the suit from being dismissed. We have to adopt a practical approach in such cases. We have thus endeavoured to reconcile the apparently conflicting views.

¶72

9.In this view of the matter, interference with the impugned decree

¶73

is not warranted and the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.

¶74

(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 07.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:

¶75

The Principal District Court, Karur.

¶76

8/9

¶77

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