Shanmugam v. Arulmighu Chinnamman Koil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1941 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.10110 of 2016 Shanmugam S/o.Late Murugesa Naicker ... Petitioner vs Arulmighu Chinnamman Koil Chengalpattu Town represented by Fit Person/Executive Officer, Having office at Sakthi Vinayagar Temple Chengalpattu - 603 001.

... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, passed in I.A.No.251 of 2015 in O.S.No.232 of 2010 on 16.02.2016. For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Valliappan *****

O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, passed in I.A.No.251 of 2015 in O.S.No.232 of 2010 on 16.02.2016.

2. Petitioner/first defendant has filed I.A.No.251 of 2015 in O.S.No.232 of 2010 on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking rejection of the plaint. The Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such application. Hence, this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner admittedly is a tenant in respect of property belonging to a temple and there is no dispute over the ownership vesting therewith. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the only issue involved in the suit is reduced to one of who is entitled to management of the temple property. When so, Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, would be a bar to the suit.

5. On perusal of the order under challenge and the plaint, this Court finds that the petitioner/first defendant had filed a suit against the second defendant asserting that he was the owner of the property in question. In such circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff/fit person has moved the suit inter alia seeking a declaration that the property belongs to the temple. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order of the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. It would be open to the concerned parties to raise all questions of law and fact that arise in the circumstances of the case, before the Court below. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.07.2016 Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

C.T.SELVAM, J gm Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1941 of 2016 11.07.2016