Dismissed¶46

R.Loganathan v. Mayilvel

Madras HC7 Jul 2026CRP(MD)/1724/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 civil revision dismissed; impleadment applications in ejectment suit upheld as properly dismissed; ejectment suit founded solely on landlord–tenant (jural) relationship needs no proof of absolute title; title dispute between plaintiff and HR & CE Department irrelevant; HR & CE officials (Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Inspector/Fit Person) not necessary parties; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; S. Sounthar J.; O.S.No.26 of 2021, Thiruppuvanam; I.A.No.4/2022 and I.A.No.7/2023; Thaneer Pandal Maniyam; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None. The Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions (C.M.P(MD)Nos.8295 and 8298 of 2026) are closed. ¶46

R.Loganathan Vs Mayilvel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions (C.M.P(MD)Nos.8295 and 8298 of 2026) are closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the dispute regarding title to the suit property between the plaintiff and the HR & CE Department (the petitioner claiming it belongs to the Thaneer Pandal Maniyam under HR & CE control) is relevant in a suit for ejectment brought solely on the basis of the landlord–tenant relationship, i.e., whether proof of the jural relationship alone sustains an ejectment claim. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

To maintain a suit for ejectment it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish absolute title over the property; proof of the jural relationship between the parties is sufficient to sustain such a claim.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Any dispute regarding title to the suit property between the contesting first respondent and the HR & CE Department is wholly irrelevant to the issues in the ejectment suit; consequently the HR & CE officials did not need to be impleaded.

¶40

Key takeaways

The trial Court rightly appreciated the legal position in dismissing the impleading applications, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court.ratio¶40
Cautionary rider: the existence of the jural relationship between the parties shall be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced, and no observation made in this order while deciding the Civil Revision Petitions shall affect the rights and contentions of any party during the trial.obiter¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (S. Sounthar J., 07.07.2026) — C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1724 and 1725 of 2026 (Art. 227, Constitution of India): Tenant R.Loganathan challenged the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam's dismissal of his impleadment application I.A.No.4/2022 (seeking addition of the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department) and of the Inspector's I.A.No.7/2023, in ejectment suit O.S.No.26/2021 instituted by Mayilvel solely on a landlord–tenant basis. Held (ratio): absolute title need not be proved to maintain an ejectment suit — proof of the jural relationship suffices; any plaintiff-versus-HR & CE title dispute is wholly irrelevant to such a suit, so the HR & CE officials need not be impleaded. No illegality or infirmity found in the impugned orders; both revision petitions dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Rider: the existence of the jural relationship is for the trial Court to decide on evidence, and nothing in this order binds the parties at trial. Fact noted: the Inspector never challenged the dismissal, and his Fit Person appointment has since been set aside by this Court in a writ petition.

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1724 and 1725 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1724 and 1725 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.8295 and 8298 of 2026

¶7

C.R.P.(MD)No.1724 of 2026

R.Loganathan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Mayilvel

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai District.

¶13

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Regional Office, Sivagangai District.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.02.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.4/2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court Thiruppuvanam.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P(MD)No.1724 and 1725 of 2026

¶20

C.R.P.(MD)No.1725 of 2026

R.Loganathan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Mayilvel

2.Ayyanar S/o Ramachandran Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Manamadurai, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶26

.. Respondents

¶27

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.10.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.7/2023 in O.S.No.26 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court Thiruppuvanam.

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders

¶30

passed by the trial Court dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the HR & CE Officials and dismissing the application filed by the Inspector of HR & CE Department seeking his impleadment as a party to the suit.

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P(MD)No.1724 and 1725 of 2026

¶34

The contesting first respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit seeking ejectment of the petitioner based on the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship. The petitioner has been contesting the suit by raising various defences, including a dispute regarding the title to the suit property. According to the petitioner, the suit property belongs to the Thaneer Pandal Maniyam under the control of the HR & CE Department. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A. No.4 of 2022 seeking impleadment of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, and the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner as party defendants. Likewise, the Inspector of the HR & CE Department filed I.A. No.7 of 2023 seeking his impleadment on the ground that he had been appointed as the Fit Person of the Thaneer Pandal by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department. Both the impleading applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

¶35

It is pertinent to note that the Inspector of the HR & CE Department, whose application for impleadment in I.A. No.7 of 2023 was dismissed, has not chosen to challenge the said order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the order appointing him as the Fit Person has subsequently been set aside by this Court in a writ petition.

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

C.R.P(MD)No.1724 and 1725 of 2026

¶39

It is seen from the records that the contesting first respondent instituted the suit seeking ejectment of the petitioner solely on the basis of the landlord–tenant relationship. The suit has not been filed on the basis of title, as is evident from the pleadings and the valuation of the plaint. To maintain a suit for ejectment, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish absolute title over the property. Proof of the jural relationship between the parties is sufficient to sustain such a claim.

¶40

In such circumstances, the dispute, if any, regarding the title to the suit property between the contesting first respondent and the HR & CE Department is wholly irrelevant to the issues arising for consideration in the present suit. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the legal position and dismissed the impleading applications on the ground that, in a suit for ejectment founded on the jural relationship between the parties, the question of title does not arise for consideration. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P(MD)No.1724 and 1725 of 2026

¶44

Needless to state, the existence of the jural relationship

¶45

between the parties shall be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Any observation made in this order, while deciding the present Civil Revision Petitions arising out of the dismissal of the impleading applications, shall not affect the rights and contentions of any of the parties during the trial.

¶46