High Court · 2025

A.S.No.235 of 2007IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARA.S.No.235 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 20101.P.Rajendran2.V.Rajamani3.R.Loganathan... Appellantsvs.1.P.Karuppiah @ Ponnambalam2.P.Ramasamy3.Nallamuthu4.Gowri5.Parthasarathy 6.M.Bhoopathy7.P.Sukhya Bai8.R.K.Baby Ammal9.D.Venkatesan10.G.Ramachandran ... Respondents PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.2767 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007For Appellant: Mr.B.Balavijayan Legal Aid CounselFor R8: A.KareemFor R1, R6, R7,R9and R10:Notice returnedFor R2 and R3:Abated vide Court order dated 12.04.2024For R4 and R5:No Appearance J U D G M E N TThe first appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2767 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that Will dated 09.10.1960 executed by one Swami Arunagirinathar was null and void and for consequential relief of partition granting 1/4th share in the suit properties in favour of first plaintiff and another 1/4th share in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The plaintiffs also sought for a declaration that sale effected by D1 and D2 in favour of other defendants was null and void and not binding upon the 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought for permanent injunction restraining defendants from making further alienation of the suit properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties originally belonged to first plaintiff's grandfather's brother Swami Arunagirinathar. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are husband and son of first plaintiff's sister Kamatchi. The defendants 1 and 3 are brothers of first plaintiff, the second defendant is the administrator of the estate of deceased Arunagirinathar, as per the order passed in Probate proceedings. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant who was appointed as Administrator of the Will was entitled to administration of estate and he has no right of alienation. Further it is stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 and 2 colluding together alienated major portion of the suit properties in favour of other defendants namely the defendants 4 to 11. Therefore, the instant suit has been laid seeking the above said relief.3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 20074. The first defendant filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that as per the agreement dated 09.03.1995, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 received a sum of Rs.15,800/- towards their share in the advance amount paid by the agreement vendee. Having received their share of the agreement money, the plaintiffs were not entitled to question the alienation.5. The second defendant filed a separate written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that he was disciple of above mentioned Swamy Arunagirinathar and as per executed Will dated 09.10.1960, the suit property was bequeathed in his favour. The said Will was probated by this Court in T.O.S.No.12 of 1996. It was the further case of the second defendant that the properties in question were given to him personally and for performing certain duties enumerated in the Will and no Trust was created and the 2nd defendant was entitled to deal with the property with power of alienation. It was further stated that as per the Will, certain services have to be performed. However, no Trust was created and the property was not at all endowed. Swamy Arunagirinathar himself had constructed various shops and let out the same for tenants. Since the rental 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007income from the properties was very low, the defendants 1 and 2 sold 2173 sq.ft of 'A' schedule property to the 4th defendant. It was also claimed that the letters of administration was issued in favour of 2nd defendant in T.O.S.No.12 of 1966. As per the terms of Will created in favour of second defendant, the patta for the suit properties was also issued in favour of the second defendant. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had attested the agreement of sale entered into with the other defendants.6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed following issues:(1)jhthr; brhj;Jf;fspy; thjp 1/4 ghfKk;. 2. 3 gpujpthjpfs; 1/4 ghfKk; bgw mUfija[ilath;fsh?(2) fhyk; brd;w mUzfphp ehjuhy; vGjpitf;fg;gl;l 09/10/60 njjpa capy; rl;lg;go bry;yj;jf;fjpy;iybad;D tpzk;g[if ghpfhuk; bgw thjp mUfija[ilatuh?(3) jhthr; brhj;Jf;fSf;F 2k; gpuj[pthjp jhd; KGikahf ghj;jpag;gl;ltuh? 2k; gpujpthjp mitfis tpw;gid bra;a[k; mjpfhuk; gilj;jtuh?.(4) vj;jF epthuzk; thjp milaj;jf;fth;?.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 20077. Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and sixteen documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as DW.1 and 7th defendant was examined as DW.2 and 9th defendant was examined as DW.3. On their behalf, eighteen documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B18. Apart from the above exhibits, four other documents were marked as Exs.X1 to X4.8. The trial Court based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought for by them and dismissed the suit and hence, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that predominant purpose of Will executed by Arunagirinathar was performance of Samathi Pooja and the second defendant indulged in alienation of the properties to the other defendants. 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007The learned counsel for the appellants also assailed findings of the trial Court in holding that Arunagirinathar was a Sanyasi and hence there could not be any intestate succession as per personal law applicable to him.10. Based on the above submission, the following points are arising for consideration:(i) Whether the findings rendered by the trial Court that the plaintiffs cannot be treated as legal heirs of deceased Arunagirinathar is sustainable under law?(ii) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to relief sought for in the suit?11. A perusal of the averments in the plaint would indicate that the above mentioned Arunagirinathar, original owner of the suit properties became a Sanyasi and renounced worldly life in the year 1922 and dedicated himself for religious activities. Even in Ex.A1, Will executed by Swami Arunagirinathar, he described himself as Head of Agathia Gurukula Sadhu 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007Nanayana Desika Nilayam, Tiruvattur. He described the beneficiary under the Will namely the second defendant as his disciple and he initiated him in religious order. The testator also claimed that he was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein. As per the terms of Will, he appointed the second defendant as the first heir entitled to succeed to headship of institution after his death. It was also made clear that the defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to sell any properties described in 'C' schedule. However, there was a prohibition against alienation in respect of the properties described in 'A' and 'B' schedules.12. The combined reading of the averments of the plaintiffs in their plaint and Ex.A1 would make it clear that testator namely Arunagirinathar was a Sanyasi, who renounced the world. Therefore, on his death the personal law applicable to him will not come into operation and the succession Will take place according to the custom and usage of the religious order followed by him. In this regard reference may be had to Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 707, which reads as follows:8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 200729. One who enters into a religious order severs his connection with the members of his natural family. He is accordingly excluded from inheritance. Entrance to a religious order, is tantamount to civil death so as to cause a complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property. Neither he nor his natural relatives can succeed to each other's properties.The plaintiffs herein claim themselves as legalheirs of Arunagirinathar, as per personal law applicable to Hindus. The trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that in respect of persons who had renounced the world and entered the religious order as sanyasi, the personal law is not applicable and the natural heirs were not entitled to succeed to estate. Hence the findings of the trial Court that the appellants/plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit in their capacity as natural heir of Arunagirinathar is legally sustainable and the first issue is answered as against the appellants.13. In view of the conclusions reached by this Court that the 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed to the estate of Arunagirinathar, the relief sought for in the suit cannot be granted. Therefore, I do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the trial Court in dismissing the suit.14. It is made clear that the dismissal of the suit will not prevent the beneficiary of the Will executed by Arunagirinathar from questioning the alienation made by the defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that the impleading petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2010 is at present in-charge of the administration of the estate of Arunagirinathar as per the order passed by this Court in O.P.No.507 of 2004. He is also said to have instituted a suit in O.S.No.7298 of 2006, pending on the file of V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to declare the documents executed by the defendants 1 and 2 were null and void. He is entitled to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.15. With these clarification, the first appeal stands dismissed. 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 200716. In view of the dismissal of the first appeal, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. No costs. 15.09.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Noub ToThe III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.S.SOUNTHAR, J.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.235 of 2007ubA.S.No.235 of 200715.09.202512/12