Sekarreporter: S.A.No.983 of 2001 and CMP.No.10310 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 31.03.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 23.06.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

[6/28, 18:21] Sekarreporter: S.A.No.983 of 2001
and CMP.No.10310 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 31.03.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.983 of 2001
and CMP.No.10310 of 2001
1.Sivaprakasam (died)
2.K.R.Rangaraj
3.R.Krishnaveni
4.R.Sandhiyavalli … Appellants/Defendants
(1st appellant died. Appellants 2 to 4 are recorded as Legal
representatives of the deceased first appellant viz., Siva Prakasam
vide order of Court dated 02.12.2019 made in S.A.No.983 2001 as
per memo dated 02.12.2019 were recorded)
Vs.
1.Palani Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Temple, Palani,
represented by its Joint Commissioner and Executive Officer,
A.Mayandi, S/o.Ambalam,
Palani, Palani Taluk, Dindugal Anna District.
2.Sreeranga Gounder
3.Sellakumar
4.Umapathy Sekar
5.Muruga Mohankumar … Respondents/
Plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.164 of 1994
dated 10.08.1999, on the file of the learned II Additional District
Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree made in
O.S.No.133 of 1988, dated 14.09.1994, on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Dharapuram.
1/22
[6/28, 18:22] Sekarreporter: S.A.Nos.437 & 438 of 2000
and CMP.No.3590 of 2000
both for person and property. Likewise, the Court is guardian of
properties of Idol of the temple. The Court has to protect the
properties of the Idol like as that of minor child. According to the
Hindu Methology at Palani, the Lord Subramaniya Swamy alias
Karthick, abode as minor child and hence, the Court has to protect
the property of the Idol as that of minor child. Being a guardian of
the property of the Idol, this Court feels that the
appellants/defendants, who are enjoying the property for generations
by adopting dubious method and hence, this Court hereby direct the
Commissioner and Secretary of HR &CE Department, to give suitable
instructions to the plaintiff/executive officer to take possession as per
the decree within a period of four weeks after the expiry of the four
weeks time granted to the defendant to hand over the possession,
failing which, the Commissioner has to supervise that the decree is
executed at the earliest.
35.Hence, the substantial question of law is answered in
negation against the appellants and S.A.Nos.437 & 438 of 2000 are
dismissed and the judgment and decree passed in A.S.Nos.165 of
1994 & 15 of 1995, dated 10.08.1999, on the file of the learned II
Additional District Court, Erode, by confirming the judgment and
22/24

You may also like...