High Court · 2025

CRP No. 1889 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHACRP No.1889 of 2025and CMP No.10890 of 20251. Bama BalajiW/o.Balaji, Thabovanam No.198, Thirumalai Pillai Road, Perungudi, Chennai - 600 096.Petitioner(s)Vs1. R.ManickamW/o.Radhakrishnan, Zamin Aranmanai, Puraivipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.2.V.Shanmuga SundariWo.Vetrivel Koppanna Mandradiyar, Zamin Aranmanai, Puravipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.3.M.Meera MaheshW/o.Maheswaran, Zamin Aranmanai, Puravipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.4.M.JeganS/o.Murali Manoharan, Zamin Aranmanai, Puravipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 2025Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 24.03.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, confirming the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi.For Petitioner(s):Mr.Shangar MuraliORDERThe above civil revision petition has been filed by the second defendant challenging the order dated 24.03.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, in and by which, the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi.2.The facts are briefly set out herein below:2.1The respondents/plaintiffs herein had filed a suit O.S.No.138 of 2019 seeking the relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants, their men and agents from any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 2025possession and enjoyment of suit 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties and performing poojas to Swamiji's Samati and Annadhanam situated in the suit 'C' and 'D' schedule properties. 2.2It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties belong to them, their family members and their ancestors for nearly 150 years ago. A palace was constructed by the plaintiffs in the suit property. That apart, there were other structures put up in the said property. The plaintiffs' family also owned the temples for their family deity Arulmigu Veeramachiamman and Arulmigu Vinayagar. After the demise of the plaintiffs' predecessors, the first plaintiff's father Jagan Mandalapthi Goppanna Mandradiar had become the owner of the suit property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The electricity services connection have also been obtained in the name of the first plaintiff's father and the receipts are also being issued to date in his name. 2.3The plaintiffs would submit that in and around the year 1962, one ascetic Yogi viz. Arulmigu Kodeeswara Swamigal (for brevity “the Swamiji”) visited the plaintiffs' palace on his own volition and settled there from the year https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 20251962 to 1994. In the year 1994, while the Swamiji was residing in the plaintiffs' palace, he had attained the feet of the Lord and as per his wishes and his body was buried in the suit property. The Swamiji had huge following of devotees and the plaintiffs were in the habit of providing Annadanam to the devotees, who visit the Swamiji. After the demise of the Swamiji, the devotees increased and in order to provide Annadanam, the plaintiffs had constructed Annadana Mandapam at their own costs even during the lifetime of the Swamiji and they have also constructed a Mandapam over and in front of the Swamiji's Samadhi.2.4The plaintiffs would contend that this is a private temple and no other party has right to the same. However, the defendants have been preventing the plaintiffs from enjoying the suit properties and with great effort, the plaintiffs were thwarting their attempt. However, since the threat is continuing the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit in question. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application seeking ad interim injunction, wherein, the very same averments contained in the plaint has been extracted. 2.5The second defendant had filed a written statement, in which, she would deny the fact that prior to the plaintiffs, their predecessors were in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 2025possession and enjoyment of the property. The allegation that the temples and other structures had been put up by the plaintiffs had been denied. The second defendant would submit that the second plaintiff had given out pamphlets stating that the Zamin family of Puravipalayam would be conducting Maha Kumbabishegam for the Swamiji's temple on 29.08.2018. A complaint was preferred by the second defendant on seeing the pamphlet. The Inspector of Police had conducted enquiry and thereafter, the boards and placards were removed and the second plaintiff assured the Inspector of Police that she will stop the Kumbabishegam plan. In short, the defendants had denied the possession of the plaintiffs. In the application for ad interim injunction as well, the defendants had taken the same stand. 2.6Ultimately, the learned District Munsif, Pollachi, after hearing both the parties, granted ad interim injunction on 15.11.2021. This order was taken up for challenge in C.M.A.No.3 of 2022 before the Subordinate Court, Pollachi. The Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, also confirmed the order dated 15.11.2021, aggrieved by which, the second defendant is before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 20253.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/second defendant and perused the records.4.The grievance of the petitioner herein/second defendant is that by the reason of this ad interim injunction, her right of worship in the temple situated in 'C' schedule property has been prevented. However, a perusal of the order that has been passed by the learned District Munsif, Pollachi, would show that he has only restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The learned District Munsif has passed the following order:“27) Kothf. kDthdJ bryt[j;bjhifapd;wp mDkjpf;fg;gl;L V. gp. rp. o brl;oa{y; brhj;Jf;fspy; cs;s kDjhuu;fs; - thjpfspd; mikjpahd mDgt RthjPdj;ija[k;. rp kw;Wk; o brl;oa{y; brhj;Jf;fspy; cs;s Rthkp$P rkhjpapy; bra;a[k; g{i$fisa[k; md;djhdj;ija[k; vjph;kDjhuu;fs; - gpujpthjpfnsh. mtu;fsJ Ml;fs; tifawhf;fnsh vt;tpjj;jpYk; mj;JkPwp EiHe;J vt;tpjj;jpYk; ,ila{nwh. ,d;dnyh. Mf;fpukpg;g[ Kaw;rpfnsh bra;af;TlhJ vd;W mry; tHf;F Kotila[k; tiuapy; ,ilf;fhy cWj;Jf;fl;lis gupfhuk; tH';fp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 20255.The appellate Court has confirmed this order and on mere perusal of the order of the District Munsif, Pollachi, it is clear that the petitioner/second defendant's right to worship has not been taken away and only he has been injuncted from interfering with the conduct of the poojas by the plaintiffs in the Swamiji's Samadhi and Annadhanam. Therefore, the petitioner/second defandant cannot be aggrieved by this order, as her right to worship at the temple has not been taken away.Therefore, taking in consideration the above facts, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.29-04-2025nsdIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 2025To1.R.ManickamW/o.Radhakrishnan, Zamin Aranmanai, Puraivipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.2.V.Shanmuga SundariWo.Vetrivel Koppanna Mandradiyar, Zamin Aranmanai, Puravipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.3.M.Meera MaheshW/o.Maheswaran, Zamin Aranmanai, Puravipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk.4.M.JeganS/o.Murali Manoharan, Zamin Aranmanai, Puravipalayam, Puravipalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1889 of 2025P.T.ASHA J.nsdCRP No. 1889 of 2025 29-04-2025