Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2868 (MAD)

Vadaveeranayakkar @ Vijayapandi v. Thangaraj

2022-08-23

B.PUGALENDHI

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 20.10.2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam in I.A.No.44 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014. 2. The suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 is filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the representative capacity to declare that the plaintiff's community is a denominational community holding Sri Jakkalamman Temple of Vadaveeranayakkars as a denominational religious institution of Raja Kambalathar and also for a declaration, declaring that the suit schedule property is meant for the service and upkeep of the suit temple and also for maintaining 100 sacred cows belonging to the temple and consequently for grant of permanent injunction and also for a direction to set aside the order passed by the 4th defendant dated 12.02.2014. 3. The 1st respondent/Plaintiff has filed the above suit in the representative capacity by obtaining a permission of the Court by filing an application in I.A.No.63 of 2014, under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of CPC. The Trail Court has also granted permission to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to contest the suit in the representative capacity. The suit is also ripe for trail. The order passed in the I.A.No.63 of 2014 permitting the 1st respondent/plaintiff to contest the suit in representative capacity has become final and it was not challenged. 4. The revision petitioner has filed the present interlocutory application in I.A.No.44 of 2016, under order 1 rule 8(3) of CPC to implead the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff in the above suit, which was dismissed by the Trail Court, by its order, dated 20.10.2017, that the petitioner cannot be added as the plaintiff in the above suit that the suit itself is filed in the representative capacity. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main suit is filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the representative capacity as the sole representative of the entire Thottiyanayakkar Community of Vadaveeranaickerpatti. The petitioner is the real Vadaveeranaicker. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main suit is filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the representative capacity as the sole representative of the entire Thottiyanayakkar Community of Vadaveeranaickerpatti. The petitioner is the real Vadaveeranaicker. As per the customary right, the Vadaveeranaicker post was offered to the petitioner's father, but, he was not willing to the post that he was already acting as kartha of the family and therefore, as per the wish of the entire family and the community members, the petitioner has become the Vadaveernaicker and the petitioner is also in-charge and control of the entire family of the Vadaveernaickerpatti and therefore he is legally entitled to protect the interest of the Vadaveeranaicker community and the 1st respondent/plaintiff is acting against the interest of Vadaveeranaicker and therefore, he is a necessary party and to be impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff in the above suit. As against the order of the 4th defendant dated 12.02.2014 appointing a fit person to Sri Jakkammal Temple, the petitioner and his father gave objection to the 5th respondent and fighting for the cause of the temple. The suit has been filed for the common cause of the plaintiff community and the outcome of the above suit would serve or affect the entire community. Therefore, impleading this petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff would strengthen the suit and would prevent the collusion between the respondents if any. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submits that though the plaintiff is a retired employee and he is not holding any Government Post as on date and therefore, there is no bar for filing the suit as against the defendants in the suit. Moreover, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2014. The petitioner herein, on knowing very well about the filing of the suit, kept quite for all these years and filed the interlocutory application in order to create the record as if he is the representative of Vadaveeranayakkars. Further, the petitioner herein has not made out any averment against the first respondent/plaintiff that he has not contested the suit effectively. He further submits that the petitioner herein, who is the third party, has raised a specific averment against the first respondent/plaintiff that he has acted against the interest of the Temple. Further, the petitioner herein has not made out any averment against the first respondent/plaintiff that he has not contested the suit effectively. He further submits that the petitioner herein, who is the third party, has raised a specific averment against the first respondent/plaintiff that he has acted against the interest of the Temple. Having made certain allegations in the application, the petitioner cannot be substituted as co-plaintiff and there cannot be two drivers for a bus. In support his contentions, he has also relied upon the following Judgments: (i) 1962 (1) MLJ 380 (M.Abdul Razack vs. S.Mohammad Shah) (ii) AIR 1995 Gujarat 22 (Mahechchha Corporation and others vs. Bhagwandas Dayaram and others) (iii) 1986 (6) Supreme Court Cases 500 (Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. Amrit M.Patel (Dead) through LRs. and others) (iv) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3109 (Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & others) (v) 2016 (4) L.W.56 (Manickam @ Chennappan vs. Munuswamy) (vi) 2011 (1) L.W. 32 (Karuppa Gounder and another vs. Appavoo and others) 7. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that he is a formal party and he is not having any objection either for allowing or dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 8. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials available on record. 9. The suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 is filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the representative capacity to declare that the plaintiff's community is a denominational community and Sri Jakkammal Temple of Vadaveeraniackerpatti is a religious institution of Rajakambalatar and also for a declaration, declaring that the suit schedule property is meant for the service and upkeep of the suit temple and also for maintaining 100 sacred cows belonging to the temple and consequently for grant of permanent injunction and also a direction to set a side the order passed by the 4th defendant dated 12.02.2014. 10. The plaintiff at the filing the suit in the year 2014 has filed an application in I.A.No.63 of 2014 under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and the Court has also permitted the plaintiff to sue the suit on behalf of or for the benefits of all persons, who are interested. The late Vadaveeranaicker was having three sons. The eldest son is Ponuraj, and the next son is Plaintiff Thangaraj, and the 3rd youngest son is the petitioner's father one Ramaraj. The late Vadaveeranaicker was having three sons. The eldest son is Ponuraj, and the next son is Plaintiff Thangaraj, and the 3rd youngest son is the petitioner's father one Ramaraj. As per the statement of the 1st respondent, on the death of late Vadaveeranaicker, his eldest son Pounraj has become the next head and kartha of the family. The head and kartha of the family will be elected as Vadaveeranaciker through a crowning ceremony by the elders of the community. After the crowing ceremony, the head and the kartha of the joint family will become the pattadadhar of the joint family beloved the title Vadaveeranaicker. After the death of Vadaveeranaicker, no crowning ceremony was conducted. The petitioner/plaintiff is the 2nd son of Thangaraj and the eldest son Ponuraj has not raised any objection to the plaintiff. 11. The petitioner is the son of the 3rd youngest son of Vadaveeranicker. Admittedly, there is no crowing ceremony after the demise of late Vadaveeranaicker. The suit was filed in the year 2014. The Trial Court has also permitted the 1st respondent/plaintiff to contest the suit in representative capacity. The order passed in I.A.No.63 of 2014 is not challenged. The suit is also ripe for trail. At this stage, this application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 8(3) CPC to implead the petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff. At the time of filing the suit, the suit itself is filed in the representative capacity. The petitioner has not filed any objection and the petitioner is intending to implead himself as Vadaveeranaicker, without any materials as to whether there was any crowing ceremony conducted. 12. Further, the petitioner has not placed any material that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is acting against the interest of the community. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial court passed in I.A.No.44 of 2016 dated 20.10.2017. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall workout his remedy by filing a separate suit as against the plaintiff that he is the elected Vadaveeranaicker of the community. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.