Madras High Court
Othumalai Paradesi Kattalai, vs S. Sathya Seelan, on 29 April, 2026
C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5821 of 2026
Othumalai Paradesi Kattalai,
a Hindu Religious Endowments,
Srivilliputtur
through its Takkar/Fit Person and Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Mayuranatha Swamy Thirukovil,
Pethavanallur, Rajapalayam,
(Now Executive Officer of
Sri Andal Temple, Srivilliputtur) ... Petitioner
vs.
1.S.Sathya Seelan
2.R.Sankar
3.S.Palaniselvi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the decreetal order and fair order
dated 13.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.S.No.8 of 2018 on
the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur, by
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
*****
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026
ORDER
Heard Mr.M.Kannan for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for the Respondents.
2. The plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner and the Respondents are the defendants in the suit.
3. The Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur in dismissing the application filed to summon the Municipal Surveyor of the Srivilliputtur Municipality.
4. The plaintiff claims that one Kailasa Sundaram had created the plaintiff's endowment over a century and a half ago. The purpose of the endowment is to celebrate the Aadi Pooram festival in the famous Sri Andal Temple at Srivilliputhur. The said Kailasa Sundaram had dedicated several properties, including the suit schedule mentioned property.
2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026
5. The plaintiff alleges that sometime in the year 2017, the suit property, which contained a stone mandapam, was demolished by the defendants. On verification, the plaintiff came to know that two sale deeds had been executed by an erstwhile trustee on 22.08.1975 and 21.02.2000, in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the execution of the sale deed is contrary to the terms establishing the endowment. Hence, it presented the suit for the following reliefs:
a. by declaring that the sale deed dated 21.02.2000 executed by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant in Document No;97/2001 of SRO, Srivilliputtur is null and void;
(aa) By declaring that the registered sale deed dated 22.08.1978 in Document N: 1692/1975 of SRO, Srivilliputtur executed by the former trustee of plaintiff's endowment to the 2nd defendant's father is null and void.
(aaa) By declaring that the registered partition deed dated 22.02.1999 in Document No: 537/1999 of SRO, Srivilliputtur executed by the then Administrator of plaintiff's endowment to the 2nd defendant's father is null and void.
b. by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant No: 3 restraining her from granting lease, mortgage, Gift, sale or in any way 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 encumbering or alienating or dealing with the suit property by use of the sale deed dated 21.02.2000 in Doc.No: 97/2001 of SRO, Srivilliputtur. c. by awarding the costs of suit;
6. The written statement was filed by the defendants hotly contests the claim of the plaintiff. According to them, the property belonged to one S.D.Somasundaram. He had mortgaged the property in favour of one V.A.P.Rajarathinam Pillai. Subsequently, he sold the same to the said Rajarathinam Pillai in 1975. It was further alleged that the sons of Rajarathinam Pillai partitioned the property amongst themselves. In the said partition, the suit property was allotted in favour of one of his sons, namely, V.A.P.R.Shankar. The defendants claim that, as the old stone mandapam then standing over the suits property, had become dilapidated and unfit for use due to normal wear and tear, the same was pulled down. In fine, the plea of the defendants is that the property does not belong to the plaintiff but belongs to them absolutely and thus, sought dismissal of the suit. On these pleadings, the learned Judge framed issues.
7. The parties proceeded to trial. The parties have also completed their evidence. During the course of the trial, the Town Survey Land Register was marked as Exhibits A8 and B9. After the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 evidence of both sides were closed, the matter was listed for arguments.
8. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to reopen the evidence in order to examine the Municipal Surveyor of Srivilliputhur Municipality. The plaintiff claimed that, in the old Town Survey Register, the property was described as a stone mandapam belonging to Uthumalai Paradhesiyar Madam. The plaintiff further stated that they had approached the Municipal Commissioner to obtain a certified copy of the same, but the Commissioner did not issue it. In the meantime, the suit had progressed and reached the stage of arguments. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present application. The learned Judge numbered the application as I.A. No.10 of 2026.
9. The respondents/defendants were given an opportunity to file their counter. The primary objection raised was one of delay. The respondents pleaded that seven years had elapsed since the presentation of the plaint, and that reopening the evidence would cause further delay. They also pointed out that the TSLR relating to Town Survey No.1339 had already been marked as Exhibits A8 and B9. Hence, they added a document which has already been marked 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 as an exhibit need not be summoned again. They further urged that evidence should be reopened only under extraordinary circumstances.
10. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge agreed with the defendants and dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.
11. I heard Mr.Kannan for the petitioner and Mr.Thirunavukkarasu for the respondent-caveator. The matter was heard. The respective Counsel reiterated the contentions they placed before the Court below.
12. On the first aspect of delay, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the Trial Court framed the issues only on 23.10.2024. The plaint had been presented sometime in January 2018. The defendants, without any delay, filed their written statement in December 2018. Therefore, for the pendency of the matter from December 2018 till October 2024, the Court should not have blamed either the plaintiff or the defendants; the blame should lie elsewhere. The suit itself saw the light of trial only in February 2025. The plaintiff, with all alacrity, started evidence and concluded it within a month. The cross examination seems to have progressed from March, 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 2025 till October 2025. The defendants have been much faster in their deposition in the witness box. They opened their evidence on 22.10.2025 and closed on 03.12.2025.
13. What escaped the attention of the learned Trial Judge is that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that, on 10.11.2025, he had approached the Commissioner for issuance of a certified copy of the Old Town Survey Register. The parties have already filed the new Town Survey Register. In paragraph no.5 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.10 of 2026, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded what he has sought is the copy of the old T.S.L.R and not the new one. The learned Judge has presumed that the documents that the petitioner seeks to summon are marked as Exhibits A8 and B9. That is not the case.
14. The parties are still at the stage of trial. As a specific plea has been taken by the plaintiff that in the old TSLR, the classification in the register is Stone Mandapam of Uthumalai Paradhesiyar Madam and when the original records are available with the Municipality, the attempt of the plaintiff to obtain a certified copy thereof, has failed, doors must not be shut to enable the plaintiff to procure the same. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026
15. Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Code enables a Court to summon a record from the file of the public authorities. For the fact that the petitioner has misquoted the provisions of law and has sought to invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it need not be turned out from the Court. As the plaintiff feels that the certified copy of the old T.S.L.R would assist him in the litigation and since its attempts to obtain a copy through due process failed, the learned Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the parties to summon the same.
16. In the light of the above discussions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The order passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.S.No.8 of 2018, dated 13.03.2026, is set aside.
(ii) I.A.No.10 of 2026 stands allowed.
(iii) The fear of Mr.Thirunavukarasu that on account of summoning the records, the proceedings will be further delayed, can be addressed by giving a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge to hand over the summon to produce the records to the plaintiff. The 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 Court can further direct the plaintiff that the summon be served forthwith on the concerned officials in the Municipal Office.
(iv) The learned Judge can also give a direction to the learned Government Pleader or the Standing Counsel for the Srivilliputhur Municipality to ensure that the records are produced before the Court.
(v) The evidence will be opened only for the purpose of marking the document, namely the old T.S.L.R record, and not for any other purposes.
The learned Judge is requested to act on a on a web copy of this order and not wait for a certified copy.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.04.2026
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Nsr
Note: Issue Order Copy by 04.05.2026.
To:
The Principal Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Nsr C.R.P.(MD)No.1216 of 2026 29.04.2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis