Allowed¶7

R.Daniel v. a.sarath

Madras HC21 Jan 2026WMP/2013/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment allowed in W.P.No.49192 of 2025 via W.M.P.No.2013 of 2026: R. Daniel, who installed the Church on the subject property 30 years ago and prays there as a worshipper, ordered to be arrayed as 3rd respondent; test for impleading (order cannot pass against a claimant-owner absent from the array of parties) set out; opposed by first respondent's counsel B. Kaarvannan; counsel S. Baskar appeared for the proposed party; decided 21-01-2026 by V. Lakshminarayanan J.; writ petition listed for 22.01.2026 in the admission list.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of the proposed party R. Daniel ordered; Registry to amend the writ petition to array him as 3rd respondent in W.P.No.49192 of 2025; writ petition to be listed on 22.01.2026 in the admission list. ¶7

R.Daniel Vs a.sarath — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the proposed party (R. Daniel), who claims to have installed the Church on the subject property and prays therein as a worshipper, has standing to be impleaded in W.P.No.49192 of 2025.

¶6

Court's answer

The test for impleading is whether an order can be passed against a person claiming to be the owner of the property without his being shown in the array of parties; accordingly, one who claims to have installed the Church and prays therein as a worshipper has standing to come on record.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Convinced with the reasons stated in the affidavit, the impleading of the proposed party is ordered.

¶7

Key takeaways

Registry directed to carry out the amendment arraying the petitioner (proposed party) as 3rd respondent in the writ petition, and the writ petition to be listed on 22.01.2026 in the admission list.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Impleadment - standing of installer/worshipper of Church: In W.M.P.No.2013 of 2026 in W.P.No.49192 of 2025, counsel S. Baskar sought impleadment of the proposed party, stating that the proposed party had installed the Church, the subject matter of the writ petition, 30 years ago, and that his rights would be adversely affected by any order passed without him on record. Counsel for the first respondent, B. Kaarvannan, opposed the impleadment, contending that the petitioner had not stated how he had rights to the property on which the Church was constructed. The Court stated the test for impleading is whether an order can be passed against a person claiming to be the owner of the property without his being shown in the array of parties, and held that as R. Daniel claimed to have installed the Church and prayed therein as a worshipper, he had standing to come on record. Convinced with the reasons in the affidavit, the impleading was ordered; the Registry was directed to carry out the amendment arraying the petitioner as 3rd respondent and to list the writ petition on 22.01.2026 in the admission list. Single bench: V. Lakshminarayanan J. Decided 21-01-2026.

R.Daniel v. a.sarath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Daniel v. a.sarath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Deputy Registrar Vs Chakarapani @ Viji

E.Sivashanmugam Vs R.Loganathan

G.Vijaya, Vs The Commissioner

Jayanallammal Vs St.Sebastian Church

R.Velusamy Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M.Muralidharan Vs The Commissioner