Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1313 (MAD)

H. B. Arjunan v. B. Chendran

2023-03-23

T.V.THAMILSELVI

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this civil Revision petition and to set aside the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the District Court of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in C.M.A NO.11 of 2022 confirming the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Sub Court, Udhagamandalam, in I.A No.1 of 2022 in O.S No. 210 of 2022.) 1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed to allow this civil Revision petition and to set aside the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the District Court of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in C.M.A NO.11 of 2022 confirming the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Sub Court, Udhagamandalam, in I.A No.1 of 2022 in O.S No. 210 of 2022. 2. Originally the suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiff before the Sub Court, Udhagamandalam, is O.S No.210 of 2022, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and other consequential relief in respect of suit property ''''Doddamanai'''' which is house belongs to ancestor''s of Badugu people and they worship the said Doddamanai as holly place. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration stated that they only have right to conduct worship and rituals in said Doddamanai and also declare order dated 30.07.2021, 05.03.2022 passed by the 3 and 4 defendant is against the traditional customs of the Baduga people. While so, the plaintiffs filed I.A No.1 of 2022 in O.S No. 210 of 2022 for the relief of interim injunction to stay the order dated 30.07.2021 and 05.03.2022. The said application was contested by the defendants. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the said interim injunction application as plaintiffs failed to prove their claim. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs preferred an C.M.A No.11 of 2022 in I.A NO.1 of 2022 in O.S No. 210 of 2022 before the District Judge, the Nilgiris, Udagamandalam. After considering the submissions on either side, the District Judge, dismissed the said application. Challenging the order passed by the District Judge, the Nilgiris, Udagamandalam, in C.M.A No. 11 of 2022 in I.A NO.1 of 2022 in O.S No. 210 of 2022 the plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 3. After considering the submissions on either side, the District Judge, dismissed the said application. Challenging the order passed by the District Judge, the Nilgiris, Udagamandalam, in C.M.A No. 11 of 2022 in I.A NO.1 of 2022 in O.S No. 210 of 2022 the plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs is to declare the plaintiffs/Baduga people''s are entitled to perform rituals in the Doddmanai and the plaintiffs have no objection to worship Doddmanai and the villagers also entitled to worship Doddamanai and the Government officals have no objection to worship. In spite of that the Court below dismissed the claim of the petitioner which is unfair and liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the first and second respondent submitted that without deciding the suit, no one allowed to perform rituals in Doddamanai. If permit it leads to law and order problem. Therefore the lower Court rightly dismissed the petition which needs no interference. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3 to 5 defendant submitted that they have no objection to worship in Doddamanai. 6. At the time of the submission, the learned counsel for the R1 and R2 submitted that alternative remedy may be provided till disposal of suit and also submitted that entire suit is with regard to performing rituals/Pooja in Doddamanai, hence he suggested that two parties have perform the ritual/Pooja in Dodamanai on alternative days till disposal of suit. The said suggestion was strongly objected by the plaintiffs stated that all these years rituals/Pooja was conducted by the members of the descendants of the founder of the particular village called Hatti Makka they alone entitled to perform Pooja except all the people entitled to entered into said Doddamanai. 7. Considering the submissions of either side and also on bare perusal of the records, it reveals that the dispute is only with regard to performing rituals/Pooja in Doddamanai. Further, for more than 1000 years all sectors of people worshiped the said Dodamanai but rituals/Pooja was only performed by particular community group. This Court is of the view that holy place/Doddamanai shall not be closed till disposal of the suit as it affects the sentiments of the peoples/persons who are having belief in holy place/Dodamanai. Further, for more than 1000 years all sectors of people worshiped the said Dodamanai but rituals/Pooja was only performed by particular community group. This Court is of the view that holy place/Doddamanai shall not be closed till disposal of the suit as it affects the sentiments of the peoples/persons who are having belief in holy place/Dodamanai. The respondent 3 to 5/Government also have no objection to open the place to the general public for worship. Since, the dispute is only with regard to performing Pooja in Doddamanai, therefore permitting people to offer prayers will not in any way affect both the parties. So peoples permitted to make worship in Doodamanai without performing any pooja in any form until issue resolved before the Trial Court. Accordingly, order passed by the District Court in C.M.A 11 of 2022 is hereby set aside. However, time frame to complete the Trial has already been fixed by the District Court, hence this Court is not interfere with that order. Both the petitioner and the respondent are not permitted perform Pooja until disposal of the suit. In case, any law and order problem arose the 3, 4 and 5 respondent shall take action as per manner know to law. 8. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.