Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1301 (MAD)

Perumal v. Kaliya Perumal & Others

2005-08-09

R.BANUMATHI

body2005
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition is against the order and decreetal order made in I.A.No.270 of 2002 in O.S.No.298 of 2000, dated 09-12-2002 by the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam.) This Revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, made in I.A.No.270 of 2002 in O.S.No.298 of 2000, dated 09-12-2002, dismissing the Application filed under Or.1 R.10(2) & Section 151 CPC. Third party is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:- a) The suit property relates to S.No. 22/6 in Puthur Village. According to the Plaintiff, the suit property belongs to Jayaveera Anjaneyar Temple. One Ramachandra Rao is the Hereditary Trustee. The said Ramachandra Rao is said to have executed a lease deed on 07-06-1940 in favour of the Plaintiff's father Palaniandi Pillai. After the death of his father Palaniandi Pillai, the Plaintiff is cultivating the suit property. The property has been sub-divided and patta bad been issued mentioning the existence of Kaliamman Temple, Kulam and others in the suit S.No.22/6. In highhanded action, the Defendants have trespassed into the suit property and have put up the Sri Badrakaliamman Temple and installed the deity thereon. The Defendants are also performing the poojas for the said Temple. The Plaintiff had preferred a complaint before the Revenue Officials and the Police. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam, by the proceeding dated 20-5-1995 passed an order stating that the Temple and Kulam in the Suit S.No.22/6 is in enjoyment of the Plaintiff. The Temple is under the Management of the Plaintiff. Since, the Defendants have trespassed into the suit property and had put up the Temple, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction for issuance of direction to remove the Temple. b) The Defendants have filed the Written Statement contending that the First Defendant had been appointed as the Trustee of Sri Badrakaliamman Temple and that the Plaintiff cannot have any objection for the maintenance of the Temple by the First Defendant. c) I.A.No. 270 of 2002:- The Revision Petitioner/Third Party has filed this Application under Or.1 R.10(2) and Section 151 C.P.C. According to the Revision Petitioner, the First Defendant has already filed the Suit in O.S.No. 253 of 1993, claiming himself to be the Trustee of Badrakaliamman Temple, which was dismissed on 27-7-1996. The Appeal in A.S.No. 60 of 1997 preferred by the First Defendant was also dismissed. The Appeal in A.S.No. 60 of 1997 preferred by the First Defendant was also dismissed. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, S.A.No. 1873 of 99 has been filed by the First Defendant and the same is pending. While so, by making misrepresentation to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Officials, the First Defendant had obtained an order, as if, he is the Trustee of the Temple. Hence, the proposed party has filed this Application to implead himself as the Fourth Defendant to put forth the correct facts. d) The Plaintiff has not filed any counter statement to the Application in I.A.No. 270 of 2002, which was filed under Or.1 R.10(2) & Section 151 CPC. Contending that the proposed party is no way connected with the suit, the Defendants have filed the counter statement contending that, if really the documents and the earlier proceedings are relevant that could be marked by examining the proposed party as the witness and that the proposed party cannot be impleaded as party to the suit. e) Upon consideration of the rival submissions of both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the Application finding that the suit property in O.S.No. 253 of 1993 is not proved to be the suit property. It was further held that only after proper enquiry the H.R.&C.E. Officials have declared the First Defendant as the Trustee. The learned Distant Munsif was of the view that no basis or reason has been made out for impleading the proposed party as the party to the suit. 3. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application, the Revision Petitioner has filed this Revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the First Defendant being declared as the Trustee of Badrakaliamman Temple and when the earlier suit and Appeal were dismissed, the proposed party is a necessary party to putforth the facts about the earlier litigation. It is further submitted that the First Defendant having failed in the earlier proceedings cannot have any objection to the impleading of the proposed party. 4. The Respondents have been served, but, they have not entered appearance. The points urged by the Respondents in the trial Court had been taken into consideration for disposal of this Revision Petition. 5. It is further submitted that the First Defendant having failed in the earlier proceedings cannot have any objection to the impleading of the proposed party. 4. The Respondents have been served, but, they have not entered appearance. The points urged by the Respondents in the trial Court had been taken into consideration for disposal of this Revision Petition. 5. In view of the dispute between the proposed party and the First Defendant pending in S.A.No. 1873 of 1999 can the proposed party be said to be the necessary party ? and Whether the impugned order declining to implead the proposed party as the Fourth Defendant suffers from any material irregularity warranting interference ? are the only points that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition. 6. There was an earlier dispute between the proposed party and the First Defendant regarding the Trusteeship of Badrakaliamman Temple in O.S.No. 253 of 1993. The said Suit filed by the First Defendant was dismissed on 27-07-1996, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court in A.S.No. 60 of 1997.The dispute between the proposed party and the first Defendant is pending in S.A.No. 1873 of 1999. 7. In the present Suit in O.S.No. 198 of 2000, the suit property relates to S.No. 22/6 – 1.13 acres of Puthur Village.The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to Jayaveera Anjaneyar Temple and that his father became the tenant of the suit property by virtue of lease ideed dated 7-6-1940 executed by Ramachandra Rao, who is the Hereditary Trustee of Anjaneyar Temple. The contention of the First Defendant is that, he has been appointed as the Trustee of Badrakaliamman Temple, which is situated in the suit S.No.22/6. The basis on which the First Defendant was appointed as the Trustee by the H.R.& C.E. Officials remains to be seen at the time of the trial. 8. The dispute between the proposed party and the First Defendant is the interse dispute between them. That dispute between the proposed party and the First Defendant is pending in S.A.NO. 1873 of 1999. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to implead the proposed party. This is all the more so, when the subject matter of the dispute in the earlier litigation is not shown to be the present suit property. That dispute between the proposed party and the First Defendant is pending in S.A.NO. 1873 of 1999. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to implead the proposed party. This is all the more so, when the subject matter of the dispute in the earlier litigation is not shown to be the present suit property. In any event, as pointed out by the trial Court, if really, the Judgement and Decree in the earlier litigation is relevant, the same could be advanced at the time of trial by examining the proper witnesses. If the proposed party is to be implicated, it would complicate the issues involved in the present suit. The learned District Munsif has taken note of the nature of dispute in the earlier litigation and the present suit in O.S.No. 198 of 2000. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference. This Revision Petition has no merits and is bound to fail. 9. For the reasons stated above,the order of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, made in I.A.No.270 of 2002 in O.S.No.298 of 2000, dated 09-12-2002, is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No. 2911 of 2003 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.