A.Jayaraman v. A.Manicka Chettiar And Kanniammal Dharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 5153 of 2025 and CMP No.25985 of 2025
1. A.Jayaraman New No.14, Old No.6, Bomu Chetty Street, Park Town, Chennai-600003 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. A.Manicka Chettiar and Kanniammal Dharma Paripalana Sasanam, Rep. by its Trustee, K.Elangovan, Old No. 12, New No. 1, West Street, Sriram Nagar, Alwarpet, Chennai-18.
2.The Commissioner of HR and CE Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
3.Padmavathy New No. 14, Old No. 6, Bomu Chetty Street, Park Town, Chennai-03.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 28.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.521/2020 by the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and implead the 2 nd respondent/proposed party as the 3 rd respondent in the said suit.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. T.Sundar Tajan For Respondent(s):
Mr.N.Muthuvel, Govt.Adv.
for 2 nd respondent
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the court below, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/first defendant and the second defendant to implead the Commissioner of HR & CE Department as party defendant in the suit in O.S.No.521 of 2020.
2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed the above said suit for ejectment against the defendants and for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaint was filed by the first respondent Trust, represented by its Trustee Elangovan. The said suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendants by filing written statement. The instant application has been filed by the defendants seeking impleadment of the Commissioner of HR & CE department on the ground that the suit property belongs to the Public Religious Trust and therefore, the Commissioner of HR & CE Department is a necessary party. The said application was dismissed by the court below and aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent/ plaintiff Trust is a Public Religious Charitable Trust and therefore, the Commissioner of HR & CE Department, who is the statutory authority, shall be impleaded as a party to the suit.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the HR & CE Department.
5. The suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendants seeking vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the Trust. In the plaint itself, it is clearly mentioned that the respondent/plaintiff is a Public Religious Trust and it was duly represented by the Trustee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the person, claiming himself as trustee, is not a trustee of the Trust. Therefore, the HR & CE Department shall be impleaded.
6. It is settled law that in respect of Public Religious Trust, only the Trustees are competent to file a suit for recovery of possession of the property. The Commissioner of HR & CE department is only a supervisory authority under the relevant statute. Hence, his presence is not at all necessary to decide
the controversy in the suit. However, it is always open to the petitioner to resist the suit that the first respondent/plaintiff is not properly represented by a competent person.
7. With the above clarification, this civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order passed by the court below. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-10-2025 Internet: yes Index: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif Court, Ponneri.
S.SOUNTHAR J.
MST 29-10-2025