S.A.Sivan vs Arulmighu Periyasamy Koil And Others

R.Subramanian, J

A third party, who sought to be impleaded himself in the suit in O.S.No.476 of 2006, upon rejection of the said application, has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

2.The suit in O.S.No.476 of 2006 was filed by the Hereditary Trustee of Keelapavoor Periyasamy Temple, Keelapavoor, Alankulam Taluk seeking declaration that the plaintiff vagaiyara has got a right to perform the festivals in the suit second schedule property by putting up temporary Pandhal and performing pooja to the deities in second schedule of the suit property. The prayer for consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein from demolishing the deities was also sought for. The suit is filed against two defendants. The first defendant is the Uravinmurai/an Association of persons belonging to Hindu Nadar community of Keelapavoor Village. The second defendant is an individual. The suit is being resisted by the defendants contending that the festivals were not performed in the suit second item. Certain proceedings pending before this Court were also referred to in the written statement. It is also claimed that there were prior proceedings in O.S.No.265 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi and O.S.No.3 of 1988, on the file of Sub-Court, Tenkasi.

3.During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner herein, claiming to be the hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Muppidathi Amman Temple at Keelapavoor sought to implead himself as a party to the proceedings contending that the suit second schedule property belongs to it and therefore it is a necessary and proper party to the suit. The said impleading application was resisted by the defendant in the suit claiming that the petitioner is not a proper or necessary party to the suit. It was also stated that no relief has been sought for against the Petitioner in the suit.

According to the plaintiff in the suit, the applicant is not a hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Muppidathi Amman Temple and the said temple has no right over the suit properties.

4.On consideration of the pleadings in the suit as well as the affidavit and counter affidavit, the learned District Munsif,Tenkasi concluded that the third party applicant has not proved that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The trial Court has also found that there is no evidence, at least prima facie, to show that the property belongs to Muppidathi Amman Temple and defendant, as Hereditary Trustee of the temple, is taking care of the deities and is in management of the temple. The learned Trial Judge further concluded that in the absence of any prayer being sought for against the proposed party, the proposed party is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. On the above conclusions, I.A.No.105 of 2013 was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

5.I have heard Mr.K.Guhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.D.Srinivasa raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Panneerselvam for M/s.C.S. Associates appearing for the second respondent.

6.It is settled law that the plaintiff has every right to choose his opponents. The question is as to whether a person is either a necessary or a proper party will depend upon the relief sought for in the suit against him. The relief that is sought for in the suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. The declaratory relief is with reference to a right to perform certain functions in the suit second item of property. The proposed party is not claiming any right under the defendant in the suit. The proposed party is setting up an independent title to the property in question. Therefore, even assuming that the case of the proposed party is true, any decree or judgment passed in the above suit, in his absence, will not be binding on him as he is not a party to the suit. Further the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the proposed party has not established his claim even on prima facie basis, to determine whether the proposed party is a necessary or property party to the suit. Admittedly, no document has been produced in support of the claim of the Petitioner. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below, so as to enable me to interfere with the same, sitting in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7.In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that any decree passed in the suit will not have any binding on the proposed party.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.