Madras High Court
Paramanandhan Nambiar (Died) vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 April, 2016
S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON 22.07.2022
DELIVERED ON 28.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
1.Paramanandhan Nambiar (died)
2.R.M.Krishnaveni
3.Valli
4.Parvathi
5.Sivakami
6.P.Kuppusamy ...Appellants/Plaintiff
[Appellant Nos.2 to 6 brought on record as LRs of deceased sole
Appellant vide Court order dated 21.04.2016]
Vs
1.The Deputy Commissioner,
Executive Officer,
Incorporated and unincorporated Devasam,
Susindram,
Agastheeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2.M.Dharmambal
3.Karthik ...Respondents/Defendants
[R-2 & R-3 are amended vide Court order dated 26.02.2021]
[R-3 impleaded vide Court order dated 30.10.2009]
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the decree and Judgment dated 14.07.2004 and made
in A.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate
Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the decree and judgment dated 05.12.2003
and made in O.S.No.78 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional
District Munsif, Nagercoil.
For Appellants :Mr.P.Thiyagarajan, for
Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
For R-1 :Mr.D.Hari
For R-2 & R-3 :Mr.N.Vallinayagam
JUDGMENT
The Second appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree, dated 14.07.2004 made in A.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the decree and judgment dated 05.12.2003 and made in O.S.No.78 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.
2.At trial, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and the second defendant was 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005 examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to Exs.D.8 were marked on the side of the defendants.
3.Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit in O.S.No.78 of 1998. Aggrieved, the same, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2004 and the said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal.
4.Heard on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
5.For the sake of convenience the contesting parties shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant.
6.The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the suit on the ground that Valliammal has relinquished her right of karanma service in favour of her sister, when she has no right to do the karanma service and not binding on the plaintiff.3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
2. Is the learned Subordinate Judge error in dismissing the suit, when the plaintiff is the senior most male member of the family and has right to do the karanma service as per the Section 28 of the Hindu Religious Institutions Act XV of 1950.
3. Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in accepting the oral evidence of D.W.1 with respect to relinquishment of the karanma service right when there is no documentary evidence to prove the same.
7.The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.78 of 98 for the relief of declaration, declaring that he is entitled for 1/5 share in the KARANMA service and to collect the consequential income out of the said service and for declaration that the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.11.1997 as null and void.
8.The case of the plaintiff is that the 'KARANMA' service was granted to his ancestor. Aabathanarayanan Pattar by the King of Thiruvancore during 10.11.1916. As per the said grant, the said Aabathanarayanan Pattar had the right to do the Karanma service in Marungoor Sri Subramaniyan Swami Temple, Susindram Konnayadi 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005 Sivan Templ, Susindram Perambalam Chidambareswara Swami Temple. Veeramarthanda Vinayagar Temple. Nadutheru Abimanamkatha Vinayagar Temple. Keezhathary Gramam Kanni Vinayagar Temple, Suchindram Sakthi Vinayagar Temple. Anaikarai Vinayagar Temple, Paraikai Kasi Viswanathar Temple. The rules framed under Section 28(3) of the Hindu Religious Institution Act (IV of 1950) is regarding KARANMA service. The responsibility for the proper discharge of the work and the right of deputing members from the Karanma family to do the service rest with the senior male member of the family. The said Karanma service had been divided among the heirs of the Aabathanarayanan Pattar. Accordingly, the appellant's grandfather namely Paramanandha Nambiar got 1/5 right in the Karanma service. Paramanandha Nambiar died 1963, leaving behind him two daughters, namely valliammal and Pitchuammal. The said Valliammal having three sons, first and third sons are in Government service and the second son is the Appellant. Pitchuammal's husband is Virabagu Pattar. They also having three sons, the first son is in Government service, the second son died and his wife is 'Tharambal' who was arrayed as 2nd defendant. The 3rd son is younger than the plaintiff/appellant. 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
9.After the death of Valliammal and Pitchuammal the appellant which entitled to hold the 1/5th Karanma rights in above mentioned the Temples. Then the appellant allowed his uncle Virabagu Pattar to continue to do the Karanma service till his death on 02.10.1991. Thereafter, the appellant has filed a petition, dated 23.11.1991 before the 1st respondent praying him to pass orders declaring the appellant to do Karanma service and to appoint the appellant as the Karanma service holder, entitled to 1/5th right. But, the 1st respondent without considering the appellant's petition and without any notice to him appointed one another Paramanandham, who is the son of the Virabagu Pattar to do the Karanma service in the Temples. The said Paramanandham died on 21.09.1993. Immediately, thereafter the appellant has filed another petition on 27.09.1993, requesting the 1st respondent to appoint the appellant to do requesting the 1st respondent to appoint the appellant to do the Karanma service as the appellant was the only Senior most male member of the Karanma family. The 1st respondent is not responding to any of the appellant's petition. In fact the Karanma service is to be done by five different families including the appellant families on the rotation basis.
6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
10.The appellant had filed the Writ Petitions W.P.Nos.20679/1993 & 32361/1993 in the Madras High Court for declaring that he is entitled to the 1/5 right and seeking injunction restraining the 1st respondent from appointing anybody to do the Karanma service, which was ordered on 8.4.1997(Ex.A2). The 1st respondent had appointed and authorized the appellant to perform the service and doing poojas in the above mentioned Temples from 8.4.1997 onwards. Based on this order the appellant was doing the Karanma service.
11.Now the Pitchuammal has claimed rights 1/5th share is Karanma on the basis that Valliammal gave her right to Pitchuammal. Pitchuammal and her son has no rights since her son is minor. The 1 st defendant/1st respondent has appointed stranger to perform the service on 18.11.97. Hence, he has filed the suit.
12.The plaintiff has claimed his rights under Section 28 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 as he is senior member of the family.
7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
13.Admittedly after the death Paramanandha Nambiar, Virabagu Pattar was doing karanma till his death on 02.10.1991. This plaintiff has not objected the performance of Virabagu Pattar. Paramanandha Nambiar was doing the service till his death i.e. 1993.
14.As per order dated 0-8.04.1997 the plaintiff had given rights to perform karanma till grandson of Pitchammal attaining majority. The plaintiff gave objection against the order and also questioned the order, dated 18.11.1997.
15.As per Ex.A.13, Pitchammal and Valliammal are having 1/5th share. Even in the year 1974 Virabagu Pattar was nominated on behalf of Pitchuammal and Valliammal to perform Pooja (Ex.A.16) Virabagu Pattar only appointed as nominee as per Ex.A.16.
16.The ingredients of Sections 11 and 28 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is not applicable to the present case.
8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005
17.Admittedly Paramanantha Nambiar (grandfather of plaintiff) had 1/5th rights. He had two daughter Pitchuammal and Valliammal. The plaintiff is one of the son of Valliammal. The second defendant is the daughter-in-law of Pitchuammal who claim rights for her sons.
18.Both Valliammal and Pitchuammal have nominated Virabagu Pattar as nominee to do pooja through Ex.A.16. There is no proof for Valliammal relinquished her rights to Pitchuammal.
19.The plaintiff has filed two Writ petitions to direct the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer to dispose his objection at earliest point and injunction. The writ petitions are stated to be pending.
20. The Valliammal and Pitchuammal, both had 1/5th share. There is no document to prove the relinquishment by Valliammal. There is no evidence for senior member only can do pooja.
21.The cross-examination of D.W.1 is extracted hereunder: 9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005 “tof;fpy; Nfhug;gLk; fhuhz;ik chpik Fwpj;J Koikahd tptuk; njhpahJ. vd; khkpahh; ngah; gpr;Rmk;khs;. gpr;Rmk;khspd;; rNfhjhp ,e;j thjpapd; jhahh; ts;spak;khs;. gp.th.rh.M.2 tof;fpy; 1k; gpujpthjpahf vd; khkdhh; xU vjph;tof;Fiu jhf;fy; nra;jpUf;fpwhh;. mJ gp.th.rh.M.3> mjpy; thjpapd; jhahuhd ts;spak;khs; kw;Wk; mtuJ jfg;gd; Gg;ghek;gpapd; mDkjpapd; ngahpy; fhshzik nra;jpUg;gjhf Fwpg;gpl;bUf;fpwhh;. gp.th.rh.M.1y; vd; kfDf;F ghjp chpikAk;> thjpf;F ghjp chpikAk; vd;W cj;juT gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mij Ml;Nrgpj;J KO chpikAk;> thjpf;F ghjp chpikAk; vd;
kfDf;Fj;jhd; vd ehd; tof;F jhf;fy;
nra;atpy;iy. gp.th.rh.M.1d; gb ghjp chpik vdf;F NghJk; vd;why; jtW. mjw;F vdf;F Ml;Nrgid ,y;iy.” So, the legal heirs of Valliammal and Pitchuammal jointly having 1/5 th rights. Other legal heirs of Valliammal not claimed any right in Karanma service from the beginning. Plaintiff and son of the 2nd defendant alone having right to perform Karanma service.
21.Finally, this Second Appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share in 1/5th share and the suit is decreed accordingly.
For the timings and period of performing pooja, the parties should approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No Costs.
28.07.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ksa To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.
2.The II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.
3.The Section Officer, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005 S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.54 of 2005 28.07.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis