Dismissed¶¶35

Marcus Frederick Lazaro v. Csi St.Thomas (Garrison) Church

Madras HC16 Jul 2026CRP/3881/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose J., CRP No. 3881 of 2026 and CMP No. 17018 of 2026, decided 16-07-2026. Keywords: Article 227 revision against interlocutory order; subpoena/summon to third party (Diocese of Madras, Church of South India) for production of documents; original registered Will dated 20.01.1959; authorisation letter; tenant estoppel from disputing landlord's title during tenancy; Section 122 of the Bharathiya Sakshiya Adinayam, 2023; ejectment suit O.S. No.72 of 2024; I.A. No.3 of 2026; Additional District Munsif, Alandur; irrelevance of title documents of landlord in tenant's application; revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the civil revision petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. ¶¶35

Marcus Frederick Lazaro Vs Csi St.Thomas (Garrison)… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the civil revision petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.06.2026 in I.A. No.3 of 2026 in O.S. No.72 of 2024, dismissing the petitioner/defendant's application for issuance of subpoena to the Diocese of Madras, Church of South India for production of the original registered Will dated 20.01.1959 and an authorisation letter, ought to be set aside in this revision under Article 227. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has admitted that he is only a tenant under the respondent, the reasons given by the trial court for dismissing the petitioner's application do not suffer from any infirmity.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

As observed in the impugned order and accepted by this Court, the application filed by the petitioner/tenant is not necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit, which seeks ejectment of the petitioner from the property.

¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 3881 of 2026, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) against the order dated 06.06.2026 of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur in I.A. No.3 of 2026 in O.S. No.72 of 2024. The petitioner/defendant, who admitted he is a tenant under the respondent/plaintiff, had sought a direction to issue subpoena to the Diocese of Madras, Church of South India, to produce the original registered Will dated 20.01.1959 and an authorisation letter said to have been given to him to proceed against land grabbers of the church property. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that a tenant is estopped, during the subsistence of the tenancy, from denying the landlord's title — a principle the trial court referred to Section 122 of the Bharathiya Sakshiya Adinayam, 2023 — and on the ground that the documents sought had no bearing on the issues in the ejectment suit. Held, dismissing the revision: the reasons given by the trial court, in view of the petitioner's admitted tenancy, do not suffer from any infirmity, and the application was not necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit seeking ejectment of the petitioner. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No. 17018 of 2026) closed. (Abdul Quddhose J., decision dated 16-07-2026.)

¶1

CRP No. 3881 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP No. 3881 of 2026 and CMP No. 17018 of 2026

¶7

Marcus Frederick Lazaro

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

CSI St.Thomas (Garrison) Church Rep by V.Godwin, Hon.Secretary, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600016

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Order made in IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.72 of 2024 dated 06.06.2026 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur and thereby allow this Revision throughout cost and thus render justice

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Jayaraman For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Paramasivan For Caveator

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 06.06.2026 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Alandur in I.A. No.3 of 2026 in O.S. No.72 of 2024.

¶17

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

¶18

CRP No. 3881 of 2026

¶19

In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner, who is the

¶20

defendant in the suit, seeking for a direction to issue subpoena to the Diocese of Madras, Church of South India and direct them to produce the documents, namely,

¶21

a) The original registered Will dated 20.01.1959;

¶22

b) Authorisation letter given to the petitioner / defendant to proceed the

¶23

case against the land grabbers of the church property, has been dismissed by giving the following reasons:

¶24

i) The petitioner himself has admitted that he is the tenant under the respondent / plaintiff. The tenant is estopped from disputing the title with the landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy;

¶25

ii) Section 122 of the Bharathiya Sakshiya Adinayam, 2023, embodies this principle and provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord had title to the property at the commencement of the tenancy.

¶26

c) In view of the admitted tenancy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the title of the respondent by seeking production of documents relating to respondent’s title over the suit schedule property;

¶27

d) The documents sought to be summoned viz., the original Will and the alleged authorisation letter, do not appear to have any bearing on the issues arising for determination in the suit.

¶28

e) The alleged authorisation letter, even if produced, would not assist in

¶29

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

¶30

CRP No. 3881 of 2026

¶31

deciding the question of ejectment or recovery of rent.

¶32

When the petitioner has admitted that he is only a tenant under the

¶33

respondent, the reasons given by the trial court as stated supra for dismissing the petitioner’s application does not suffer from any infirmity. As rightly observed under the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner / tenant is not necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit, which has been filed, seeking for ejectment of the petitioner from the property.

¶34