Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1107 (MAD)

S. Thangavel v. P. Sekar Poosari

2025-02-24

L.VICTORIA GOWRI

body2025
JUDGMENT : L. Victoria Gowri, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the District Munsif Court at Ottanchathiram Dindigul District, in I.A.No.409 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2024. The original. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank in the interlocutory application. 3. The petitioner and the plaintiff in the original suit are one and the same, namely, P. Sekar Poosari. The respondents/defendants before the trial Court are the appellants herein. The suit in O.S.No.106.of 2024 was filed for a spermanent injunction. The interim application in I.A.No.409 of 2024 was for a temporary injunction, seeking status quo and restraining the respondent / defendants from interfering in any manner with the petitioner / plaintiff's right of Poosariship of Mamparai Sri Muniyappasamy Temple, Markammpatti Village and Post. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both Counsels, has proceeded to pass an order of interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering with the petitioner / plaintiff in his conduct of Poosariship at the Mamparai Sri Muniyappasamy Temple by the impugned order. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents/ Defendants submitted that the suit was one for a bare injunction and without seeking a relief of declaration of his Poosariship, the suit has been laid by the petitioner / plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff, namely, P.Sekar Poosari is the husband of the third respondent / third defendant. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff that he was a trained Poosari by the father of the respondents / defendans, namely Sakthivel is baseless. The Mamparai Sri Muniyappasamy Temple is a village temple situated at Ellapatti Village. The said temple was established by one Palaniyappa Pandaram at the first instance. The Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department , Madurai, dealt with O.A.No. 33 of 1976, laid by the original trustee of the temple, Palaniyappa Pandaram, and decided in favor of the applicant declaring him as the hereditary trustee of the aforesaid village temple. The original hereditary trustee passed away on 22.02.1984 and was survived by his son Sakthivel, who took up the hereditary trusteeship and continued performing the pooja and other rituals of the village temple in question. The original hereditary trustee passed away on 22.02.1984 and was survived by his son Sakthivel, who took up the hereditary trusteeship and continued performing the pooja and other rituals of the village temple in question. On 31.07.2003, the Sakthivel passed away and was survived by his children, who are the respondents / defendants in the suit. The petitioner / plaintiff is none other than the husband of the third respondent / third defendant. Only after his marriage with the third respondent / third defendant, he came into contact with the temple in question, since his wife i.e., the third respondent / third defendant is also one of the hereditary trustees. The temple, however, does not accept the conduct of Poosariship by women, so her husband was permitted with the connivance of all the stakeholders, i.e, the surviving hereditary trustees, to conduct the Poosariship on behalf of the female hereditary trustee, i.e, his wife. 5. However, in due course of time, he had developed illicit relationships with several women and succumbed to alcoholism, which affected the various rituals and conduct of daily poojas in the temple in question. Later, this led to estrangement between the hereditary trustees, more particularly between him and his wife Gomathi, as a result of which they are separated for the past few years, which culminated in filing H.M.O.P.No.87 of 2024 before the Sub Ordinate Court, Ottachandthiram, seeking divorce, and the same is pending and the petitioner / paintiff and the third respondent / third defendant are no more dwelling together. In view of the estrangement between the third respondent / third defendant and the petitioner, all the hereditary trustees of the aforesaid temple together resolved to appoint the son of the plaintiff, namely, Munishwarar, who would be empowered to conduct poojariship on behalf of the female hereditary trustee, namely Gomathi, and he is already at the helm of affairs of the temple. Only under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the suit for a bare injections, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering his office as Poosari. Only under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the suit for a bare injections, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering his office as Poosari. The learned trial Court without marking any documents to substantiate his claim as the hereditary trustee of the aforesaid temple had proceeded to pass an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff only on the premise that the respondents / defendants had admitted that he had been contributing as the Poosari of the temple in view of his marriage with one of the hereditary trustees. However, that does not grant him any authority or a right to the Poosariship of the temple in question in the absence of any specific order passed in the regard by the hereditary trustees therein. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Ganapathi Narayan Sabhahit Vs. Shivaram Narayan Bhat reported in 1996 3 KarLJ 58 and categorically submitted that unless and until a prima facie case has been established, the learned trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of temporary injunction, when no substantial grounds were established by the petitioner / plaintiff to prove himself as the one who is holding Poosariship on the basis of hereditary trusteeship. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in second appeal in S.A.No.207 of 2013 dated 07.12.2018 and submitted that having not provided with any documents to substantiate his claim, the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the interim application which would amount to allowing the suit itself, and pressed for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. Per Contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / plaintiff categorically submitted that the learned trial Court order in passing an order of temporary injunction cannot be faulted with, for the sole reason that the petitioner / plaintiff's role as a Poosari has been admitted by the respondents / defendants in their pleading itself. Having admitted the same, they cannot blow hot and cold by refusing to permit him to continue his Poosariship. The admission made by the respondents / defendants itself contributes towards establishing a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff. Having admitted the same, they cannot blow hot and cold by refusing to permit him to continue his Poosariship. The admission made by the respondents / defendants itself contributes towards establishing a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff. He further submitted that since the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the Petitioner / Plaintiff, the trial Court rightly, after being satisfied with the conditions mandated under 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, passed the order of temporary injunction and the same need not be interfered with. He also insisted that the interim order passed by the learned trial Court is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , before the learned Sub Ordinate Court, Ottanchathiram, and having not done so, the respondents / defendants ought not to have knocked the doors of this Court, which is unwarranted, and pressed for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Heard, Mr.Anandha Padmanabhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants / defendants and Mr.C.Gangai Amaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff and perused the materials available on record. 9. The suit is one for a permanent injunction. The main relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is a permanent injunction. Along with the suit, I.A.No.409 has been laid seeking temporary injunction. The claim of the Petitioner / Plaintiff to uphold his Poosariship right was not on the basis of any hereditary right acquired by him by birth or by any order of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department of the State. No doubt, as early as on 23.03.1976, in O.A.No. 35 of 1975, the respondents / defendants grandfather Palaniyappa Pandaram had been declared as the hereditary trustee of the village temple in question under Section 63 (b) of the HR and CE Act, 1959, by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madurai. Even after his death, he was succeeded as the hereditary trustee of the temple in question by his son, Shakthivel, who passed away on 31.07.2003. He was survived by the respondents / Defendants herein. Even after his death, he was succeeded as the hereditary trustee of the temple in question by his son, Shakthivel, who passed away on 31.07.2003. He was survived by the respondents / Defendants herein. On the application made by one Thangavel (dated 09.01.2023), Gomathi (dated 09.01.2023) and Rani dated (20.08.2022) in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.5821/2022/A3 dated 22.02.2023, the Joint Commissioner of HR and CE Department, Dindigul, had declared the legal heirs of Sakthivel, namely, Tmt.Gomathi, S.Thangavel and S.Rani under Section 54(1) of the HR and CE Act, 1959 as the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Muniyappasamy Thirukovil, on the basis of the order passed in O.A.No.35 of 1975. It is the admitted case of the petitioner / plaintiff that, he commenced acting as a Poosari at the temple in question only after his marriage with one Tmt.Gomathi. Having been obsessed with the office of Poosariship, the claim of the respondents / defendants herein is that he did not rise to the occasion in conducting the pooja for the predominant deity of the temple by not upholding the dignity and divinity of the temple. He did not live to the heights of the office of Poosariship by conducting himself to a disciplined and self restrained life with more promptness. 10. The learned Trial Court has strictly proceeded to allow the interim application without considering the fact that allowing an interim application for temporary injunction in a bare suit for permanent injunction would amount to allowing the suit itself, without conducting a proper trial by marking relevant documents through the necessary parties, and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties The manner in which the trial Court has rushed to pass an order of temporary injunction in a suit for injunction, without a declaration relief, is too bad in the eye of law. In view of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.