No.7, Nagathamman KoilStreet, Mettupalayam,Chennai-33 Managing Trustee of Sri PrasannaVenkatesa Perumal Koil, MettupalayamChennai-33 v. The Executive Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:28.11.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCivil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.98 & 99 of 2006andC.M.P.Nos. 786 & 787 of 2006A.S.Venkataramanujam Chettiarresiding at No.7, Nagathamman KoilStreet, Mettupalayam,Chennai-33Managing Trustee of Sri PrasannaVenkatesa Perumal Koil, MettupalayamChennai-33.... Petitioners in both petitions Vs.1. The Executive Officer, Sri Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple, Mettupalayam, Chennai-332. A.S.Manavala Chetty (for himself and representing the members of Balija Chetty Community in and around Mettupalayam Saidapet, Chennai-333. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Fort St.George, Chennai-94. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment(Administration) Department, having his Office at No.20 Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-345. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment(Administration) Department, having his office at No.20, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. T.V.Selvarajan (Given up)7. The Mettupalayam Public Welfare & Development Association, rep. by its Secretary, Shanmuga Raj Having office at Old No.100, Kodambakkam High Road Mettupalayam, Chennai-600 033.... Respondents in CRP.No.98/20061. The Mettupalayam Public Welfare & Development Association, rep. by its Secretary, Shanmuga Raj Having office at Old No.100, Kodambakkam High Road Mettupalayam, Chennai-600 0332. A.S.Manavala Chetty S/o Sriniviasalu Chettiar (for himself and representing the members of Balija Chetty Community in and around Mettupalayam Saidapet, Chennai-333. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Fort St.George, Chennai-94. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment(Administration) Department, having his Office at No.20 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-345. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment(Administration) Department, having his office at No.20, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.6. The Executive Officer, Sri Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple, Mettupalayam, Chennai-337. T.V.Selvarajan (Given up).. Respndents in CRP.No.99 /2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 ofConstitution of India, against the order dated 5.12.2005 inC.M.P.No.2257 of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.2256 of2005 in A.S.No.268 of 2004 respectively on the file of VAdditional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.For Petitioner : : Mr. S.Senthilnathan,AdvocateFor respondents : : Mr.S D.Ramalingam-R1 & R6 ; Mr.B.Thirupathi Kumar-R2 : Ms. R.Revathi,Govt.Advocate RR3 to R5(both cases) :Mr.B.T.Seshadri-R7 in CRP No.98/2006R6 given up-CRP NO.98/2006 R7-Given up-CRP No.99/2006C O M M O N O R D E R The order passed in C.M.P.No.2257 of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of2005 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennaiis under challenge in C.R.P.No.98 of 2006 and the order passed inC.M.P.No.2256 of 2005 in A.S.No.268 of 2004 on the file of VAdditional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is under challenge inCRP.No.99 of 2006.2. The revision petitioner in both civil revision petitionshad filed C.M.P.No.2257 of 2005 and 2256 of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of2004 and A.S.No.268 of 2004 respectively under Section 151 of CPCto get himself impleaded in the appeal as additional respondentclaiming that he is the elected Trustee of the Balija ChettyCommunity. The suit in O.S.No.8692 of 1997 was filed by oneA.S.Manavala Chetty under Order I Rule 10 CPC in hisrepresentative capacity of Balija Chetty Community. The said suitwas decreed. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.8692 of1997, the 7th defendant in the suit had preferred an appeal inA.S.No.268 of 2004 and the 4th defendant ,the Executing Officer hadpreferred an appeal in A.S.No.237 of 2005. The learned firstappellate Judge had dismissed both C.M.P.Nos.2257 of 2005 and 2256of 2005 on the ground that the petitioner is not a necessary partyto the suit. According to the plaintiff, the Managing Trustee ofSri Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple is one B.K.Ramesh Chettiar.According to the revision petitioner, he has been elected as theManaging Trustee of the said temple. To substantiate thiscontention, the revision petitioner has not produced any documentbefore the First Appellate Court to show that he is the electedManaging Trustee of the said Temple. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learnel counsel appearing for second respondentrelying on a decision reported in S.Krishan-v- Rathinavel Naickerand 22 others(2007(2)CTC 73) would contend that additional partycannot be impleaded at the appellate stage. The facts of the saidcase are that one Krishnan has filed a suit in O.S.No.341 of 1998before the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram for permanentinjunction. The first respondent in the said suit had filed threeother suits ie., O.S.No.799 of 1998, O.S.No.819 of 1998 andO.S.No.573 of 1999 against the plaintiff Krishnan in O.S.No.341 of1998. Against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.341 of 1998, anappeal has been preferred before the Additional District Court(Fast Track Court No.II) Kancheepuram in A.S.No. 17 of 2001 whereinrespondents 5 to 23 in the first appeal have as proposed partiesfiled I.A.No.426 of 2003 under Order 1 Rule 10(2)of CPC for therelief of impleading them as additional respondents 5 to 23 in thefirst appeal. The order of dismissal passed in I.A.No.426 of 2003was challenged in the above said revision before this Court.Relying on two decisions (i)Aliji Momonji & Co., v. Lalji Mavji andothers(1996 (5)SCC 379 and (ii) Dr.S.Kameswaran-v.A.Jayaraman andanother (1998(2) CTC 470). This Court has held that an impleadingpetition at the appellate stage cannot be entertained. The relevantobservation deciding this revision petition in Aliji Momonji &Co., v. Lalji Mavji and others(1996 (5)SCC 379 runs as follows:"The Supreme Court defined a necessary party asone without whose presence no effective andcomplete adjudication of the dispute could bemade and no relief granted. Proper party isdefined as one whose presence is necessary forcomplete and effectual adjudication of thedispute, though no relief is sought againsthim. In the case on hand, the Trial Court hasalready decided the lis between the parties andthe correctness of the same is under challengein the First Appeal. In other words, in so faras the Trial Court is concerned, an effectiveadjudication has already been made by the TrialCourt and a complete and final decision hasalso been rendered. Therefore, the respondents5 to 23 do not pass either of the above tests,to be treated as necessary or proper parties."The exact observation in Dr.S.Kameswaran-v.A.Jayaraman and another(1998(2) CTC 470) relevant for the purpose of deciding this caseruns as follows:" A Division Bench of this Court held that aparty can be impleaded when there is a cause ofaction against him. But in this case, theactual parties to the litigation, claim titleto the property as absolute owners and there isno pleading to the effect that the proposed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents have either denied the title ofany one of them or interfered with thepossession and enjoyment of any one of them.Thus no cause of action is either pleaded orsought to be established against the proposedparties and hence they are actually unnecessaryfor the adjudication of the lis between theparties, especially at the stage of theappeal".In the absence of any evidence to show that the present revisionpetitioner is the elected Managing Trustee of the Sri ArulmiguVenkatesa Perumal Temple, I am of the view that the findings of thelearned first appellate Judge in C.M.P.Nos.2257 of 2005 and 2256of 2005 in A.S.No.237 of 2005 and A.S.No.268 of 2004 respectivelyneed not be interfered with.4. In fine both civil revision petitions are dismissedconfirming the order passed in C.M.P.Nos.2257 of 2005 and 2256 of2005 in A.S.No.237 of 2005 and A.S.No.268 of 2004 respectively onthe file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Nocosts. Consequently, connected C.M.P.Nos.786 and 787 of 2006 arealso dismissed. It is represented that the plaintiff inO.S.No.8692 of 1997 is a Senior Citizen. Under such circumstances,the learned first appellate Judge is directed to dispose of appealsin A.S.No.237 of 2005 and 268 of 2004 within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sgTo The V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai1 cc to Mr.S. Senthilnathan, Advocate, Sr. 705721 ccto Mr.B.T. Sesadri, Advocate, SR. 706292 cc to Mr.V.B. Thirupathikumar, Advocate, SR. 70535CRP(NPD)Nos.98 & 99/2006AKR (CO)kk 3/12