Temple challenged concurrent decrees granting a plaintiff permanent injunction over suit land, relying on an alleged 1952 gift deed and revenue patta orders. The High Court found no perversity or substantial question of law, confirmed both decrees, and dismissed the second appeal at admission stage.
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.362 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
Sree Veera Bhagavan Swamy Kovil, Aranthangi, Thiruppani Sangham, Rep. by its President R.Balakumar, S/o.Ramaiah Pillai, No.95/a, L.N.Puram 3rd Street, Aranthangi Town and Taluk, Pudukkottai District. Cause title is accepted vide court order dated 26.6.25 made in CMP(MD)No. 9552/2025)
... Appellant/Appellant /2nd Defendant Vs.
S/o.Vaithilingam, No.12/34, Lakshmi Narasimmapuram 5th Street, Aranthangi Town and Taluk, Pudukkottai District - 614 616.
... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent /
1st Defendant
1/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court Pudukkottai dated 27.01.2023 made in AS No.29 of 2019 by which confirming the Judgment and Decree made in OS No.87 of 2018 dated 08.08.2019 on the file of the Sub Court Aranthangi and allow the Second Appeal and thus render justice.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Baalasundaram, Senior Counsel, for M/s.KBS Law Associates
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
cents dedicated to Sri Veera Bhagavan Swamy Temple under Ex.B1, a deed of gift dated 01.06.1952, and that subsequent alienations by Vallikannu and Vimala were invalid. Reliance was also placed on
3/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
Ex.B5, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 05.06.2008 cancelling the plaintiff’s patta and mutating it in the name of the temple, followed by Ex.B6 patta issued in the temple’s favour, and Ex.B2, a notice of 1965 under the Madras Estates Abolition Act showing existence of temples in the inam village.
4/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
5/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
plaintiff’s possession, in the case of vacant land, follows her established title. The concurrent findings that the plaintiff was in lawful possession and that the defendants had not shown any semblance of right over the suit property are well founded on law and evidence.
Speaking : Yes / No 28.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No LS
6/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
Copy to:
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
7/8
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
28.08.2025
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff's title and possession were proved through Ex.A1 to A3 and revenue records so as to sustain a bare injunction suit.
Whether the unregistered deed of gift (Ex.B1) and revenue orders (Ex.B5, Ex.B6) created a cloud on the plaintiff's title warranting declaratory relief.
Whether any substantial question of law arose for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula SudhakarApplied¶9
Anathula Sudhakar
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sree Veera Bhagavan Swamy Kovil, Aranthangi, Thiruppani Sangham, Rep. by its President R.Balakumar
Annakodi
Sathaiah Pillai
A.D.Maria Clete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
