Allowed

Chidambaram Pillai,(Died)Memo v. Nanjilnadu Vellala Azhakia

Madras HC24 Apr 2025SA(MD)/53/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by plaintiffs of a suit for permanent injunction restraining temple trustees from alienating trust property without permission. Respondents filed an undertaking not to alienate; the substantial question of law was answered in the appellants' favour and injunction granted.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction: present and future office bearers restrained from alienating suit scheduled property without court permission; no order as to costs.

Chidambaram Pillai,(Died)Memo Vs Nanjilnadu… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶7

Chidambaram Pillai

¶8

(Memo filed in USR.No.790 dated 10.02.2017 to the effect that 1^st Appellant died and his legal heirs do not want to prosecute CMP(MD)No.1777 of 2016 in the appeal is recorded vide Court order dated 16.02.2018 made in S.A(MD)No.53 of 2018 by SSSRJ)

¶9

Perumal Pillai

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Nanjilnadu Vellala Azhakia Chozha Nangai Amman Trust, Representd by its trustees,

¶13

(cause title accepted vide Court order dated 11.01.2018 made in CMP(MD)No.1777 of 2016 in SA(MD)SR.No.49324 of 2015 by SSSRJ)

¶14

Thamburan Thozha Pillai

¶15

A.Sundar

¶16

K.Veera Bhagu

¶17

S.Velayuthan Pillai

¶18

Madhavan Pillai

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

1/9

¶21

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

¶22

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶23

Prayer:

¶24

Prayer: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2015 of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil made in A.S.No.16 of 2007, on his file, reversing, the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007 of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, made in O.S.No.6 of 2007.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Thampi For R1 : Mr.R.Murugan For R2 to R6 : No Appearance

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil have filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit.

¶28

The appellants are the 1^st and 3^rd plaintiffs in the said suit. They

¶29

filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit scheduled property.

¶30

2/9

¶31

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

¶32

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶33

In the plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2006 it is stated that the temple viz., Azhakia Chozha Nangai Amman Temple in Theroor Village in Agasteeswaram Taluk is a religious denominational temple established by the Nanjilnad Vellalars of Theroor. The temple has number of immovable properties. The rent/income received from the temple properties were used for the purpose of maintenance of said temple.

¶34

A suit was filed for framing a scheme in O.S.No.58/1095 and the

¶35

same was decreed on 19.04.1924. The scheme was framed on 19.10.2025

¶36

with the following contents:-

¶37

A) There shall be a Management committee consisting of four members of which two will be trustees

¶38

B) One of the trustees shall function as the Managing Treasurer

¶39

C) The election of members of the Managing Committee and the Managing Treasurer shall be approved by the court

¶40

D) The trustees shall maintain accounts

¶41

E) Every year before the 31^st Avani month the trustees shall submit the accounts of the previous year to the court. The court may give notice regarding the submission of accounts to the beneficiaries of the trust and hear objections if any. The trustees shall be liable if loss of money or property is provoked on scrutiny of accounts

¶42

F) Every year on the 1^st of Pankuni month the next years' budget shall be prepared and produced in court by the trustees. The trustees shall expend monies of the trust only after consideration and approval of the annual budget.

¶43

3/9

¶44

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

¶45

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶46

G) The Managing committee members and the trustees elected by the General Body of the Trust shall hold office for a period of three years

¶47

H) The notice regarding the convening of the General Body of the trust shall be by a notice to be published

¶48

I) Once in three years the managing committee shall prepare the voters' list of the trust beneficiaries

¶49

J) The general body of the trust shall be convened twice every year

¶50

As per the scheme the respondents without properly conducting

¶51

the General Body Meeting they declared themselves as Managing Trustees of the said temple and also trying to alienate the suit scheduled property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit in the interest of the Trust seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit scheduled property.

¶52

The defendants viz., the office bearers have filed a written

¶53

statement stating that there was no attempt made to alienate the suit schedule property. It is further stated that proper General Body Meeting was conducted and the present office bearers namely the defendants were duly selected. Hence, they seek for dismissal of the suit.

¶54

4/9

¶55

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

¶56

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶57

The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit in O.S.No.6 of 2007

¶58

by a judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs filed the appeal and the same was also dismissed on 30.06.2015 in A.S.No.16 of 2007. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission the following substantial question of law was framed:-

¶59

“When it is admitted that the suit properties are the properties of the Trust and the lower appellate Court has also found that the suit properties can be sold by the Trust only after getting permission as required in law, whether the lower Court is right in dismissing the suit in its entirety, in a case where the defendant has taken a stand that they can sell the property without any permission?”

¶60

During the course of second appeal, the respondents viz., the

¶61

office bearers filed an affidavit before this Court undertaking that they will not alienate the suit scheduled property. The said undertaking affidavit also is extracted hereunder:-

¶62

5/9

¶63

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

¶64

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶65

6/9

¶66

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

¶67

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶68

7/9

¶69

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

¶70

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶71

In view of the above undertaking, the substantial question of law framed in the second appeal answered accordingly in favour of the appellants and the appellants are entitled for the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or the present office bearers or the prospective officer bearers from alienating the suit scheduled property except with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed in the following terms:-

¶72

i. The present office bearers or any other office bearers who would be elected in the future are restrained from alienating the suit scheduled property without permission of the Court.

¶73

ii. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

24.04.2025

¶75

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm

¶76

8/9

¶77

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

¶78

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶79

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶80

rgm

¶81

¶82

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil

¶83

The District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil

¶84

The Section Officer, V.R. Section (Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶85

S.A.(MD)No.53 of 2018

¶86

24.04.2025

¶87

9/9

¶88

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

Chidambaram Pillai,(Died)Memo v. Nanjilnadu Vellala Azhakia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidambaram Pillai,(Died)Memo v. Nanjilnadu Vellala Azhakia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundaraja Koolapa Naicker, Vs Kumaradurai Sithaman

K.P.Ramasamy Vs P.Karuppannan

Shri.v.Govindasamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu

V.Velsamy Vs Angammal

Arumugam Vs Chellathal

Meenakshi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police