Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1327 (MAD)

Gothandam v. K. Ayyaru Vandayar

2015-03-06

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The appellants herein are the defendants in O.S.No.82 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from doing any act other than worshipping in Sri Pappara Kaliamman Temple at Uthamarkudi Keelatheru, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.122 of 2014 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court granted an interim injunction as prayed for, by order dated 20.10.2014 in I.A.No.122 of 2014 in O.S.No.82 of 2014. 3. The appellants have filed this appeal against the aforesaid order, granting temporary injunction. The respondent/plaintiff filed Caveat Petition and appeared at the time of admission. 4. This Court heard both the parties at length. The crux of the issue is that the appellants being the villagers of Uthamarkudi Keelatheru, wherein, Sri Pappara Kaliamman Temple is situated, wanted to renovate the temple and to do some work connected therewith and they do not want to do any thing more than that. An Undertaking Affidavit dated 24.02.2015 has been filed by the appellants and in paragraph 4 therein, the appellants have categorically undertaken that they would not change or alter any alleged historical features or structures in the temple, that was the apprehension of the plaintiff. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Undertaking Affidavit are extracted in this regard. "4. We submit and undertake that we will carry on the painting and repair work and we will not change or alter any alleged historical features or structures in the temple. We will abide by and adhere to undertaking strictly. We will not claim any right or advantage in the pending suit on the basis of doing this repair and painting work. 5. We pray that this Honourable Court be pleased to record this undertaking andpermit us to do the repair and painting work in the suit temple pending disposal of the original suit, without prejudice to the rights of both parties to agitate the rival claims on merits in the suit and thus render justice." 5. 5. We pray that this Honourable Court be pleased to record this undertaking andpermit us to do the repair and painting work in the suit temple pending disposal of the original suit, without prejudice to the rights of both parties to agitate the rival claims on merits in the suit and thus render justice." 5. In view of the undertaking affidavit dated 24.02.2015, I am of the view that the order dated 20.10.2014 made in I.A.No.122 of 2014 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 could be modified by substituting the terms of undertaking. The matter could have been rested there. But the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted in the last occasion that an inscription was removed and it should be placed at the same place. 6. Today, the appellants have filed an Affidavit of Undertaking dated 06.03.2015 enclosing the photograph of the aforesaid inscription, stating that the inscription was removed for the purpose of repair work only and the same would be restored by fixing it at the same place where it existed earlier. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit dated 06.03.2015 is extracted in this regard:- "2. We respectfully submit that the undertaking affidavit already filed on 24.02.2015 may be considered as part and parcel of this Affidavit. Today the respondent has filed a typed set showing an inscription in the temple and alleges that we are trying to damage it. The particulars of the inscription as produced by him in the typed set are not correct. However there is an inscription a photograph of the same is annexed along with this affidavit. We have removed the inscription for the purpose of carrying out the repair work in the temple. It is intact. We undertake to restore the inscription to the very same place on completion of the renovation work. The respondent may not have any apprehension regarding the same." 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has stated that the grievance of the respondent/plaintiff would be redressed, if the aforesaid inscription, the photocopy of which is filed before this Court along with the affidavit dated 06.03.2015, is again fixed in the same place where it earlier stood. Now, the undertaking affidavit is filed to the aforesaid effect and the terms thereof have been extracted above. 8. Now, the undertaking affidavit is filed to the aforesaid effect and the terms thereof have been extracted above. 8. In the result, the Undertaking Affidavits dated 24.02.2015 and 06.03.2015 filed by the appellants are placed on record and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in terms of the Undertaking Affidavits dated 24.02.2015 and 06.03.2015. It is made clear that this order is passed on the consent of both the parties and the Undertaking Affidavits dated 24.02.2015 and 06.03.2015 shall be treated as part and parcel of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 is closed.