Madras High Court
Janardhanam Panicker (Died) vs Kunjulekshmi Amma on 3 September, 2025
S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 20.06.2025
Pronounced On : 03.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S.A.(MD)No.159 of 2018
1.Janardhanam Panicker (Died)
2.Kainthan ... Appellants/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
3.J.Vickraman
4.J.Viswan
5.J.Regu
6.V.T.Ushara
7.V.T.Thshara ... Appellants
(Appellants 3 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased
st
1 appellant vide Court order dated 05.08.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.
3256 to 3258 of 2022 in S.A(MD)No.159 of 2018 by GRSJ)
8.P.K.Thulasi ... Appellant
( 8th Appellant is impleaded as per the common order of this Court
dated 23.07.2024 made in CMP(MD)Nos.5765, 5766 and 5767 of 2024
in SA(MD)No.159 of 2018 by KMSJ)
1/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018
Vs.
1.Kunjulekshmi Amma
2.Sarojini Ammal
3.Velayuthan Pillai
4.The President
5.The Secretary
6.The Treasurer,
Parthivapuram Devi Temple,
Parthivapuram,
Puthukadai Post, Arudesam Village,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
7.Sudessan ... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
8.Jegadhan
( 8th respondent is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated
23.07.2024 made in CMP(MD)No.3 of 2024 in SA(MD)159 of 2018)
PRAYER:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to allow the second appeal and set aside the judgment and
decree passed in A.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the Camp Court,
II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kuzhithurai, dated
04.08.2017 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.359 of
2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, dated
14.09.2012.
For Appellants :Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
2/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018
For Respondents :Mr.K.N.Thampi
JUDGMENT
The appellants 1 & 2/original plaintiffs in O.S.No.359 of 2008 have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the Camp Court, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.359 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after shall be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
The original plaintiffs in O.S.No.359 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai are the appellants 1 & 2 before this Court. The first appellant is the son of Madu Panickar and the second appellant is the son of Kuttan Panicker. The original plaintiffs filed a suit 3/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the subject matter of the suit namely, the idol to the plaintiffs. One Madu Panickar, who is the father of the first plaintiff and grand-father of the second plaintiff had three sons namely, Janarthanan Panickar, Kuttan Panickar, Ramakrishan Panickar and he constructed Bhadrakali Temple at Piracode Kuriyanvila for their family worship and in the said self constructed temple, he installed two Bhadrakali idols. During his life time, he performed poojas and administrated the temple affairs. After his demise, his sons performed the poojas and also managed the temple affairs. In such circumstances, one of the sons of the said Madu Panickar, namely, Ramakrishan Panickar died and hence, the remaining sons performed poojas in the said temple. The seventh respondent, namely, Sudeson, is the son of the above said Ramakrishan Panickar. The husband of first defendant, namely, Raman Pillai, and the third defendant, namely, Velayutham Pillai, approached Kuttan Panickar and expressed their desire to take one of the idols from Kuriyanvila Bhadrakali Temple to their temple at Devicode for performing poojas and conducting a festival namely, “Devicode Movoo Parambu”. The sons of Madu Panickar agreed to the same and entered into a registered agreement on 28.02.1958 on 4/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 certain terms and conditions. One of the idols was handed over to the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant. In the said agreement, there is a specific clause that the idol is to be returned if any demand is made by the plaintiffs' family. Some other terms were also incorporated in the agreement relating to the sharing of the amount offered by the devotees. The perpetual ownership of the idols is with the family of the plaintiffs and there was a special clause relating to transfer the idol to another place only with the consent of the plaintiffs. That being the situation, in the year 2008, the plaintiffs' families renovated their temple and planned to perform kumbabhishekam, on 02.06.2008. To perform kumbabhishekam, they required the idol, which was already given to the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant. Therefore, they approached the family members of them and thereafter, came to know that the said idol is installed in “Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple, which belonged to the defendants 4 to 6 and hence, the plaintiffs issued a notice to them to return the said idol. Since, there was no response, they filed a suit for return of the idol.
4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 5/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 defendants 4 to 6 are as follows:-
The defendants 4 to 6, who are the present administrators of the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple filed a written statement stating that the suit idol is a different idol and it never belonged to the Bhadrakali Temple at Piracode Kuriyanvila. The said Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple is in existence from time immemorial and the different idols were installed and the worship was conducted from time immemorial and the case of the plaintiffs that the suit idol belongs to their family is not correct. There was no claim since 1968 onwards and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. Further, the suit without prayer for declaration, seeking just mandatory injunction is not legally maintainable and the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple was constructed much earlier to the year 1968. Hence, they sought to dismiss the suit in all aspects.
5. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the seventh defendant are as follows:-
The seventh defendant filed a written statement reiterating the material pleading of the defendants 4 to 6 and he stated that he performs poojas in the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple belonging to the 6/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 defendants 4 to 6.
6. The plaintiffs filed a replication as additional pleadings. and the same is as follows:-
In the plaint, the plaintiffs specifically stated that the seventh defendant namely, Sudeson, who is the son of the deceased Ramakrishnan Paniker performed poojas in the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple and they came to know that without informing them, the husband of the first defendant & the third defendant entered subsequent agreement with one Venugopal Nair and Sudarsanan Nair on 03.05.1968. The said Venugopal Nair and Sudarsanan Nair constructed a temple in the year 1969 at Parthivapuram and installed the suit related idol in that temple and conducted annual festival. In the year 1982, there was a dispute between the said Venugopal Nair, Sudarsanan Nair and other persons relating to the administration of said Parthivapuram Temple and hence, Venugopal Nair filed a suit in O.S.No.342 of 1982 on the file of the Kuzhithurai Munsif Court, to restrain other persons from Parthivapuram to interfere with the management of the “Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple”. In the plaint of the said suit, there was a specific 7/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 reference about the shifting and handing over of the suit related idol from the plaintiffs to the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant. The temple belonged to Nair Community and the same was constructed by 123 persons belonging to Nair Community and they were managing the temple and also the idol, conducting festival and safeguarding the properties.
7.Based on the above said pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-
1.Whether the defendants 1 to 6 are to be directed to return the plaint schedule idol to the plaintiffs?
2.What reliefs and costs?
8. Before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A26 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the fourth defendant was examined as D.W.1 and another witness was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B19 were marked.
9. After analyzing the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial 8/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Court dismissed the suit stating that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation and also observed that there is no privity of contract between the defendants 4 to 6 and the plaintiffs and hence, the suit relief for mandatory injunction, without seeking declaration is not maintainable. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Camp Court, Kuzhithurai, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in A.S.No.81 of 2012. The learned Appellate Judge has appointed an Advocate Commissioner and observed that the suit related idol and the temple idol is one and same but dismissed the suit by confirming the finding of the learned trial Judge that the suit is barred by limitation and the defendants acquired right by acquiescence.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. During the pendency of the appeal, the first plaintiff died and hence, his legal heirs were impleaded as appellants 3 to 8.
11.1. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in view of the specific observations of the learned Appellate Judge that the suit related idol is the idol of the plaintiffs, the finding of the learned 9/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Appellate Judge and the trial Judge that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable is not legally correct.
11.2 The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that as per Ex.A1, the suit idol was handed over to the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant in the year 1958 by entering into a registered agreement dated 28.02.1958. In spite of the restriction clause that the suit idol should not be transferred to any other person without consent of the plaintiffs' family, they handed over the suit related idol to one Venugopal Nair and Sudharsanan Nair and the defendants 4 to 6 contested the suit; they stepped into the shoes of the said Venugopal Nair and Sudharsanan Nair, who have claimed the ownership and the possession of the plaintiffs' suit related idol in the temple of the Bhadrakali Temple at Piracode Kuriyanvila and their legal heirs. They have no right to retain the idol of the plaintiffs' family and therefore, the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable and the plaintiffs established the title over the suit idol through the documents Ex.A1, A2, A16, A18, A21 & A24 and through the evidence of D.W.1 & D.W.2. 10/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 11.3. The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that the Court below failed to grant mandatory injunction and erroneously held that, the suit claim is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs lost their right by principle of acquiescence.
11.4. The learned counsel for the appellants would also argue that on going through the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, it is clear that their evidence is not supporting the pleadings. From the records, it is clear that the Parthivapuram Devicode Temple was constructed in the year 1969 only after taking “idol” under Ex.A16 from Raman Pillai and the third defendant and thereafter, installed the idol. The subsequent management, further developed the construction activity of the temple by obtaining lands from various persons and no iota of evidence was available on records to presume that the temple was constructed much earlier to 1958 and the idol was installed in the temple at Parthivapuram.
11.5. The learned counsel for the appellants would also argue that in view of the admitted position that the suit idol is the plaintiffs' idol and the exigency to get back the idol arose only at the time of performing 11/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Kumbabhishekam on 02.06.2008 and at that time, they approached the legal heirs of Raman Pillai and the third defendant and informed to them about the idol. Thereafter, they approached the defendants 4 to 6 to return the idol and hence, the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable. According to the plaintiffs, the suit is within time. There was a fraudulent relocation of the suit related idol from Devicode to Parthivapuram and no consent was obtained from the plaintiffs' family as per the agreement dated 28.02.1958. The same came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only in the year 2007 and the suit was filed in the year 2008. Hence, the suit was filed within the time.
11.6. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the idol is under their perpetual tutelage and hence, there is no limitation to file a suit for recovery of idol and he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Reddy Vs. Ranga Dasan and Other reported in 1926 LW 657.
11.7. The learned counsel for the appellants would further argue that even in the suit document namely, the pleadings in O.S.No.342 of 12/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 1982, it is clearly stated about the agreements dated 28.02.1958 and 03.05.1968 and the construction of the temple in the year 1969 and the management was with Sudharsanan Nair and Venugopal Nair and the present defendants are the administrators of the said Parthivapuram Devi temple. Therefore, the plaintiffs established their case as per law and therefore, he seeks to set aside the judgment of both the Courts below. It is also contended that both the Courts below discussed only about the limitation aspects and therefore he has prayed for decreeing the suit in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs.
12.1. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the case of the appellants/plaintiffs is based on the agreement dated 28.02.1958. They have to go by their pleadings in the original plaint. But, they have come up with inconsistent plea and in line with the plaint and in replication, no evidence was adduced to prove that the suit related idol and the idol mentioned in the agreement is one and the same. The Parthivapuram Devi temple is in existence from time immemorial and the suit related idol was installed and the worship is being offered by 123 Nair families of the Puthan Vedu and hence, the case of the plaintiffs is 13/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 not correct. The plaintiffs clandestinely described the similarity in features of the idol installed in the Parthivapuram Devi temple as a suit schedule property and made the fraudulent claim. In the two agreements, dated 28.02.1958 and 03.05.1968 marked as Ex.A1 & Ex.A16 which were strongly relied by the plaintiffs, the defendants 4 to 6 were not a party and hence, there is no privity of contract. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable.
12.2. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that both the Courts below correctly have held that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs lost their rights by acquiescence to get back the idol.
12.3. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Limitation Act has no application to the minor idol cannot be accepted in this case on the ground that the plaintiffs have not filed a suit on behalf of the idol represented by the family members of the plaintiffs. 14/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 12.4. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the cause title of the suit is not in consonance with the Order VII Rule 1(d) of CPC., and also an elaborate discussion was made as to whether the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable or not without seeking declaration on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment reported in 2008 (6) CTC 237. The learned counsel also relied the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal:-
i) Kapil Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2022) 10 SCC 281.
ii)Hardayal Gir Vs. Sohna Ram reported in (1970) 3 SCC 635
iii) Sugani (MST.) Vs. Rameshwar Das and Another reported in (2006) 11 SCC 587
iv) Manindra Land and Building Corporation Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee reported in AIR 1964 SC 1336
v) Krishnapasuba and Another Vs. Dattatraya Krishnaji Karani reported in AIR 1966 SC 1924 12.5.Two issues involving question of fact and law i.e., no privity 15/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 of contract, maintainability of suit, simultaneous suit without prayer for declaration, arise and this Court has power under Section 103 of CPC., to adjudicate the issue between the parties without driving them to the trial Court. T he learned counsel appearing for both parties seek to address the issue of the similarity in features of the suit idol and the idol described in agreement and also the agreement dated 03.05.1968 and its binding nature, if any, on the defendants 4 to 6.
13. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the records available on record.
14. At the time of admission, the following question of law was framed by this Court:-
a) Whether the Limitation Act is applicable for the recovery of the suit scheduled property?
15. A joint representation made by the learned counsel on either side that there was no specific finding on two aspects namely, i) the plea of privity of contract and ii) the suit idol is the same idol mentioned in the agreement and hence, they want to exercise power under Section 103 16/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 of CPC., to render a finding to avoid further delay in the disposal of the case with regard to the said aspects. Both the Courts below have not considered the same and failed to give a specific finding. Therefore, this Court framed the additional question of law to consider the factual aspects of evidence on record.
15.1. After hearing the argument on either side, this Court framed the following Additional Question of law:-
a) Whether the plea of the defendants 4 to 6 that there was no privity of contract can be accepted on available evidence?
The Genealogy of Madu Panickar is as follows:-
Madu Panickar 17/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Janarthanan Panickar Kuttan Panickar Ramakrishna Panickar Kainthan Sudeson 15.2. Madu Panickar constructed the Bhadrakali Temple at Piracode Kuriyanvila for the spiritual benefits and material prosperity of his family. He installed “Two Bhadrakali idols” otherwise known as “Mudi” in the said temple. He performed Pooja and managed the said temple affairs till his life time. After his demise, his three sons namely, Janarthanan Panickar, Kuttan Panickar and Ramakrishna Panickar took the management of the temple and performed Poojas as per the customs followed by his father Madu Panickar. That being the situation, Ramakrishna Panickar died and the management and Poojas were performed by Janarthanan Panickar and Kuttan Panickar. The 1st Defendant's husband “Raman Pillai” and the 3rd Defendant “Velayutham Pillai” approached Kuttan Panickar and Janarthanan Panickar and expressed their wish and desire to take one of the idols from Kuriyanvila Bathirakali Temple to their temple at Devicode and to 18/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 perform poojas there and conduct festival called Devicode Movoo Parambu. The said Janarthanan Panickar and Kuttan Panickar agreed to give one of the idols on certain terms and conditions and also entered into registered agreement dated 28.02.1958 with the said Raman Pillai and 3rd Defendant. The following material terms and conditions are relevant to resolve the dispute between the parties :-
1) The perpetual ownership of the idols is with Janarthanan Panickar and Kuttan Panickar and their successors.
2) Raman Pillai and the 3rd defendant are permitted to take the idol, otherwise called “Mudi”, to their village situated at Devicode Temple.
3) The Poojas had to be performed either by Kuttan Panickar or by the person authorized by him.
4) Both Raman Pillai and the 3rd Defendant took the responsibility of the safety of the idol and performance of Poojas.
5) If any necessity to bring the idol otherwise called “Mudi” to conduct the festival either in Kuriyanvila Temple or any other institution under the supervision and control of the above said four persons, the said idol would have been transmitted and retransmitted after the conclusion of the festival.
6) During the period when the idol had been kept 19/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 in the Devicode Temple, 1/3 of the offering of the devotees should be paid to Kuttan Panickar and obtain receipt for them. Remaining 2/3 of the offering of the devotees could be kept for meeting the expenses of the temple and make use of the balance to acquire the properties in the name of the temple with consent of Kuttan Panickar and Janarthanan Panickar.
15.3 As per the agreement, the idol had been placed in the “Devicode Temple”. The said Raman Pillai and the 3rd Defendant were unable to offer poojas to the idol and hence, on 03.05.1968, they entered into an agreement with one Venugopal Nair and Sudarsanan Nair and handed over the said idol to them to perform poojas in the “Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple”. The defendants 4 to 6 are presently managing the said Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple. The plaintiffs constructed the temple and planned to reinstall the said “Mudi” in Kuriyanvila Bhadrakali Temple in their village. Therefore, they approached the husband of the first defendant and the third Defendant and they later came to know that on 03.05.1968, the said idol was handed over to one Venugopal Nair and Sudarsanan Nair and the same was installed in the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple and issued notice to 20/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 them to return the idol to perform the poojas in their village. They refused to give the idol and hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the suit scheduled idol to the plaintiffs.
16. The defendant 4 to 6 raised dispute over the identity of the suit idol and have claimed that the suit idol is not same as mentioned in the agreement dated 28.02.1958. To resolve the same, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed during the pendency of the appeal suit in A.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional Sub-Judge, Nagarcoil. The Advocate Commissioner visited the temple and gave a positive report that “the suit mentioned idol is same as idol placed in the “Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple”. This court perused the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also the connected records. There was no objection for the Advocate Commissioner's report. The First Appellate Court observed that the commissioner had filed the report stating that the suit idol and the temple idol is one and the same.
17. The learned Counsel for the defendants 4 to 6 would submit that the plaintiffs clandestinely described the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali 21/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Temple idol's physical features with the suit scheduled idol and hence, the defendants case that the suit idol is not the idol mentioned in the agreement still holds good. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the physical features mentioned in the suit idol is same as that of the physical features mentioned in the agreement dated 28.02.1958. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants 4 to 6 that the plaintiffs made a false claim by making the physical features of the idol clandestinely.
18. The physical features of the idol stated in the registered agreement dated on 28.02.1958 is same as the suit scheduled idol. Apart from that, dispute arose over Venugopal Nair & Sudharasanan Nair's management of Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple in the year 1982 and hence, suit in O.S.No.342 of 1982 was filed by the said Venugopal Nair and Sudharasanan Nair against the festival committee member of the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple. In the said suit, the features of the present suit idol was mentioned. That apart, this court finds no material to accept the case of the defendants 4 to 6 that the suit idol was installed at Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple prior to the year 1958 as pleaded by 22/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 them. Therefore, as per the documents Ex.A1, Ex.A16, Ex.A20, Ex.A21 and Ex.A24 and the Advocate commissioner's report, this court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants 4 to 6 that the suit idol is not the idol mentioned in the agreement. As a sequel, this court holds that the idol is belonged to the plaintiffs' Piracode Kuriyanvila Bhadrakali Temple.
19. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit holding that the suit claim is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellants relied the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Rama Reddy Vs. Ranga Dasan reported in 33 LW 657 and submitted that an idol is perpetual minor and there is no limitation to recover the property of the idol. Hence, neither Section 6 nor any provision of the Limitation Act are applicable. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that plaintiffs are not idol and “the cause title does not show the plaintiff as the idol represented by either the trustee or the worshipper”. Hence, the case of the appellants that non applicability of section 6 of the Limitation Act and other provisions of the Limitation Act is misconceived. Therefore, Article 68, 69 and 113 are 23/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 applicable to the present case. The case of the plaintiffs is that their ancestor namely, Madu Panickar installed the suit idol for his family worship. After his demise, the surviving family members entrusted the custody of the suit related idol with one Raman Pillai and the third defendant through the registered agreement dated 28.02.1958. In turn, they had transferred the custody with the persons in the management of the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple in the year 1968. According to the both the Courts below, the said transfer of the idol is in violation of the terms and condition of Ex.A1 and no action was taken by the plaintiffs for 40 years i.e,. from 1968 to 2008 and therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by estoppel by acquiescence and limitation. The said finding of both the courts below, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not correct. As per one of the following terms of the registered agreement dated 08.02.1958, the transfer of the idol from the custody of Raman Pillai and the third defendant to any temple is permissible only with the consent of the plaintiffs:
“Nky; jpUtpoh rk;ge;jkhd rlq;Ffspy; 1-k; kw;Wk; 2-k; fl;rpfSila i~ gj;jpufhsp Kbia Kd; elg;gDrhpj;J 1-k;> 2-k;
fl;rpfSila Fhpak;tpis NfhapypNyh kw;W VjhtJ epWtdq;fspYNkh nfhz;L nrd;W jpUtpoh elj;j Ntz;Lnkd;W mtrpag;gl;lhy; 1-k;> 2-k;> 3-k;> 4-k; fl;rpfSila nghWg;gpy;
24/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 nfhz;L te;J jpUtpoh elj;jp jpUg;gpf; nfhz;L nry;y Ntz;baJk; mJ rk;ge;jkhf Ntz;b tUfpd;w nryTfs;
mtrpag;gLfpd;w fl;rpfs; nra;J nfhs;s Ntz;baJk; nra;J nfhs;syhk; vd;gJk; MFk;.” ghh;tjpGuk; gj;jpufhsp mk;kd; Nfhapypy; ehd; 10 tUlk;
jiytuhf ,Ue;J tUfpNwd;. vdf;F Kd;ghf vg;NghjhtJ Gj;jd; tPl;ilr; Nrh;e;jth;fs; Nfhtpiy eph;tfpj;J te;jhh;fsh vd vdf;F njhpahJ. me;j Nfhapiy ];jhgpj;jJ ahh; vd;W njhpahJ. ve;j tUlk; me;j Nfhtpy; ];jhgpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; njhpahJ.
18.07.1968 Njjpapy; Vw;gl;l 3085 vz;; nfhz;l tpiyahjhuk;
Nfhtpy; ngaUf;F cz;L. me;j Mtzk; me;j rkaj;jpy;
jiytuhf ,Ue;j NtZNfhghy;> Rjh;rdd; ngaUf;F
Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; vdf;F njhpahJ.
Nfhtpy; eph;khdk; nra;ag;gl;ljw;fhd Mtzk; vJTk; vd;dplk;
,y;iy.
Nfhtpypy; ,Uf;ff;$ba gpk;gj;ij ehd; ghh;f;ftpy;iy. ntspapy; ,Ue;J tzq;fpAs;Nsd;. me;j gpk;gk; kuj;jhy; nra;ag;gl;lJ. me;j gpk;gj;jpd; mikg;Gfis vd;dhy; $w KbAkh vd;W Nfl;lhy; vdf;F njhpahJ. me;j gpk;gj;jpd; mikg;G gw;wp tof;Fiuapy; $wg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; vdf;F njhpahJ. vdf;F Fhpad;tpis vd;w Ciuj; njhpAk;. Fhpad;tpis Gj;jd; tPl;ilj; njhpahJ. vg;NghjhtJ ghh;tjpGuk; gj;jpufhsp mk;kd; Nfhtpypy; ,Ue;J gpk;gj;ij kw;w NfhtpYf;F G+i[f;fhf nfhLj;jJ cz;lh vd;W Nfl;lhy; mt;thW nfhLj;jjpy;iy. 1109-k; tUlk; 106 vz; nfhz;l Mtzk;
%ykhf gpk;gj;ij nfhLj;jJ rk;ge;jkhf Mtzk; 25/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 vJTk; ,y;iy.
,t;tof;fpy; cs;s 3k; gpujpthjp NtyhAj gps;isia vdf;F njhpahJ. Mtiug; gw;wp ehd; tprhuiziaAk; ,y;iy.
ky;yd;gps;is kfd; uhkd;gps;isiaAk; vdf;F njhpahJ. uhkd;gps;is NtyhAjk;gps;is MfpNahh;fs; ,t;tof;fpd; thjp [dhh;j;jdd; gzpf;fh; kw;Wk; mth; rNfhjuh;fSld;
Vw;gLj;jpf;nfhLj;j cld;gbf;if gw;wp njhpahJ. mt;thW xU cld;gbf;ifia thjpfs; ,t;tof;fpy; jhf;fy; nra;Js;shh;fs;. Vd;W nrhd;dhy; mJgw;wp vdf;F njhpahJ. ghh;tjpGuj;ij Nrh;e;j ehuhzgps;is kf;fs; NtZNfhghy; ehah; kw;Wk; Rjh;rdd; ehah; uhkd;gps;is NtyhAjk;gps;isAld; cld;gbf;if ,t;tof;fpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; vdf;F njhpahJ.”
20. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said Raman Pillai violated the condition of the agreement and transferred the idol to the “Parthivapuram Devi Temple” without obtaining consent from the first plaintiff and the deceased Kuttan Panickar and same was not known to the plaintiffs till 2007. In the year 2007, their Kuruvanvila Bhadrakali Temple was renovated and it was decided to perform Kumbabhishekam on 02.06.2008. To perform the Kumbabhishekam, they needed the idol from Ramanpillai and the third defendant and demanded to produce the idol in the year 2007. At that time only, the above relocation of idol made by Raman Pillai and third defendant came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. 26/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 The plaintiffs thereafter issued a notice and filed the suit for mandatory injunction. There is no contra evidence adduced on the side of the defendants that the plaintiffs had knowledge about the said relocation prior to the year 2007. From the contents of Ex.A16. dated 03.05.1968, it is seen that Raman Pillai and the third Defendant transferred the idol to the custody of the Administrator of the Parthivapuram Devi Temple namely, Venugopal Nair and Sudarsenan Nair, because of their inability to perform poojas and safe custody of the idol with the specific clause to return the idol if the necessity arise. In the said Ex.A16, there is a specific reference about the earlier agreement dated 28.02.1958. The present defendants are the successors of the said Venugopal Nair and Sudarsenan Nair and they are in administration of temple. Presently, the defendants 4 to 6 have disputed the said fact to suit their convenience. This court is not inclined to accept the same for the reason that in O.S.No.342 of 1982, there was clear pleading that Venugopal Nair and Sudarsenan Nair brought the idol from Raman Pillai and the third defendant and constructed the Parthivapuram Badrakali Temple and they had been performing the poojas by appointing the son of Ramakrishnan Panickar namely, Sudhesan and the defendants in the said suit interfered 27/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 with the administration of the temple and hence, he filed the suit and prayed for declaration and injunction. The said suit was closed with an endorsement that the matter had been settled out of the Court.
21. The defendants 4 to 6 have not materially disputed the averment in the said plaint. Further, there was no evidence adduced on the side of the defendants to show that the Parthivapuram Badrakali Temple existed prior to 1969. The specific pleading of the defendants is that the “Parthivapuram Sri Maha Kali Temple” belonged to “Puthan Vedu Nair family” consisting of 123 members and they constructed the temple on 04.12.1984 and further developed the land purchased on 13.03.1999 and the suit idol was installed much earlier. The said defense plea is mere pleadings without any evidence and against the contents of various documents. On 21.01.2011, the fourth defendant examined himself as DW.1. On that day, he was aged about 70 years. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he resided at Parthivapuram and he knew about the existence of temple for 45 years and he was acting as President for 10 years and he did not know whether the members of the Puthan Vedu managed the temple. He specifically admitted that he did not know about the year of the construction of the temple and who had constructed 28/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 the temple and also admitted the document dated 18.07.1968 and he stated that there was no document available to prove that the temple was constructed prior to the year 1968 and he did not know about the fact whether Venugopal Nair and Sudarsenan Nair administrated the temple in the year 1982, further, he did not know about the fact as to who had installed the idol in the temple. He had not even seen the idol of the temple. He did not deny the agreement made between Raman Pillai and the Venugopal Nair and Sudarsenan Nair and he feigned ignorance about the material questions about the relocation of the idol as per the agreement made in the year 1968.
22. DW.2 another witness, aged about 86 years was examined and he also admitted that he did not know about the person who had installed the idol in the Parthivapuram Temple and he also feigned ignorance about the material questions. He did not see any ancient document to show that existence of temple prior to the year 1968. From the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 that the temple existed from time immemorial is not correct and the temple was constructed in the year 1968 on the land gifted to the temple under 29/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Ex.A25 (Tamil version Ex.A26) to install the idol that had been obtained by Venugopal Nair through receipt dated 18.07.1968 and the document produced by the defendants dated 13.03.1999 and on 04.12.1984 only show about the expansion of the temple. In the said documents, there was reference about the existing temple in one of the boundaries. Therefore, from the undisputed plaint averment in O.S.No.342 of 1982 and Ex.A25 and the evidence of the DW.1 & DW.2, it is clear that Parthivapuram Temple was constructed in the year 1969 to install the suit related idol and to perform the Poojas as per the document dated 03.05.1968. The said transfer of the idol came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only in the year 2007 and hence, they filed the suit within the year 2008. The plaintiffs proved the ownership over the suit related idol and established the fraudulent shifting of the idol without the knowledge of the first plaintiff and the deceased Kuttan Panickar and the plaintiffs have also established that they got to know about the fraudulent transfer only in the year 2007, and hence, the question of limitation to recover the idol could not arise.
23. It is true that the plaint cause title was not couched properly 30/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 but the prayer is to recover the idol belonging to the family of the plaintiffs. As per the original agreement dated 28.02.1958, there is a specific clause to repossess the idol. After the construction of temple, in the year 2007 inorder to perform the Kumbhabhishegam on 02.06.2008, the plaintiffs wanted to get back the idol. Therefore, no necessity arose prior to 2007 and thereafter, they came to know about the transfer of idol without knowledge of the family members. At the cost of the repetition, this court finds no material adduced by the defendants to prove that the plaintiffs were aware about the relocaton and also there was necessity to get back the idol even prior to the year 2007. Further, the plaintiffs' family have established their perpetual ownership over the idol and there is no contra evidence adduced on the side of the defendants 4 to 6. Articles 68, 69 and 113 are as follows:
Limitation Description of suit Period of Time from which Act limitation period begins to run Article 68 For specific movable Three years When the person having property lost, or acquired by the right to the theft, or dishonest possession of the misappropriation or property first learns in conversion. whose possession it is.
Article 69 For other specific movable Three years When the property is
property. wrongfully taken.
Article 113 Any suit for which no period Three years When the right to sue
of limitation is provided accrues.
elsewhere in this Schedule.
31/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm )
S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018
24. As per the Article 68, the period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge about the conversion and this court has held above that the plaintiff got the knowledge about the conversion only in the year 2007. Article 69 has no application to the present case for the reason that the present case is relating to the conversion of the custody of the idol without knowledge of the plaintiffs by the administrator of the temple of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 in the year of 1968.
25. As per the residuary Article 113, the right to sue accrued only in the year 2007 when the defendants Nos. 4 to 5 refused to return the idol on the request made by the plaintiffs to perform the Kumbhabhishegam.
26. Therefore, the finding of both the Courts below that the suit claim is barred by limitation and that the claim of the plaintiffs is barred under the Principle of Estoppel by Acquiescence, is erroneous and perverse.
27. The plaintiffs' family is the owner of the idol and the same was 32/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 established through the evidence of both the plaintiffs and the defendants and the same has been discussed by this Court in earlier paragraphs.
28. The defendants’ case of their ownership is dehors pleading and without any evidence. The suit related idol was in the custody of the defendants without any legal right. The case of the defendants that they had installed the idol in the Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple before 1969 is also not proved and same is against Ex.A1, Ex.A16, Ex.A18, Ex.A20, Ex.A21, Ex.A25, Exs.B1, B3, B5 and B6. The evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 also are not sufficient to hold that the suit related idol was installed in the Parthivapuram Temple earlier to 1969 as they have feigned ignorance during the cross examination to the various questions relating to the above exhibits and also the plaintiffs ownership over the idol through the document namely, Ex.A1, Ex.A16 and Ex.A18. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the pleadings in the plaint and the replication is not consistent and hence, there is a doubt over the ownership and suit for mandatory injunction without declaration is not maintainable on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. Buchi Reddy reported in 33/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 2008 (6) CTC 237, in the above circumstances, cannot be accepted. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated the guidelines under which the circumstances, the suit for prohibitory injunction relating to the immovable property is maintainable without lawful possession over the immovable property. Even in the said guidelines in “D”, this Court has power to decide the title incidentally if there are necessary pleadings regarding the title and also the parties lead the evidence. Here, the suit is filed for reinstallation of suit related idol in the original place of the idol.
When the possession of the idol in the custody of the defendant Nos.4 to 6, is without title and right and the plaintiffs established that the suit related idol is their family idol and the same belonged to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ right to seek the relief of return of the suit idol by way of the mandatory injunction is maintainable and the same has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Avtar Singh reported in (1985) 2 SCC 331) wherein, it has been held that the suit for mandatory injunction was in effect, one for possession, only couched in different form and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be denied the relief merely for couching the plaint as a suit for mandatory injunction. Even if there was delay in approaching the Court with the relief of 34/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 mandatory injnuction, attempt should be made to avoid multiplicity of suits and the licensor should not be driven to file another round of suit with all attendant delay, trouble and expense. In the plaint and replication, there is a specific pleading relating to the ownership of the idol and the said idol was entrusted with Raman Pillai and Velayutham Pillai to perform poojas at Devicode Temple under the registered agreement dated 28.02.1958 and the same was fraudulently entrusted to the person namely, Parthivapuram Venugopal Nair and Sudarsananan Nair by the agreement dated 03.05.1968.
29. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs' family Kuriyanvila Bhadrakali Temple is of recent origin and it was constructed only in the year 2007 and hence, their case of suit related idol installed in the Parthivapuram from time immemorial is false and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a relief of mandatory injunction. They also pleaded that the defendant Nos.4 to 6 are not party to the above said agreement and there was no privity of contract and the “Mudi” mentioned in the agreement dated 28.02.1958 is not the same “Mudi” installed in the Parthivapuram Temple. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim the suit 35/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 related idol otherwise called as “Mudi”. This would show that necessary pleadings relating to the absolute title over the suit related idol has been made by both parties and abundant evidence was adduced by both parties. The suit property is movable property and same was in the custody of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 and hence, suit was filed for mandatory injunction. The court fee also is paid U/s.27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, as amended in the year 2003. The meaning of the mandatory injunction is as follows:
“Mandatory Injunctions:-
When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.”
30. From the above meaning of the mandatory injunction, it is clear that the same requires affirmative actions from the defendants restoring the property to its original condition. It is a powerful legal tool used to enforce specific action when other remedies are insufficient to 36/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 address wrong and injustice. A mandatory injunction is issued by the court to direct a person to perform certain acts, as opposed to a prohibitory injunction, which seeks to preserve the status quo. The defendants named in a mandatory injunction must undo the wrong or injury that one has caused. This Court may issue a mandatory injunction when there is a defendant's encroachment on the plaintiffs' right. In this case, the plaintiffs' suit idol was in the custody of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 and no evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants to retain the said idol in their custody. Further, no evidence was adduced to prove the circumstances under which they got the idol, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the plaintiffs' idol was in the custody of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 and hence, they are bound to explain the same and there was no explanation about their right to retain the idol. It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiffs' ancestor Madu Panickar founded the Bhadrakali Temple at Piracode Kuriyanvila for the spiritual benefits and material prosperity of his family. He installed “Two Bhadrakali idols” otherwise denoted as “Mudi” in the said temple. He performed the Pooja regularly and managed the said temple affairs till his life time. After his demise, his three sons namely, Janarthanan Panickar, Kuttan Panickar 37/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 and Ramakrishna Panickar took the management of the temple and performed the Poojas as per the customs followed by their father Madu Panickar. They handed over the same to Raman Pillai and Velayudam Pillai. From their custody, the same was given to Venugopal Nair and Sudarsananan Nair. They constructed the Parthivapuram Temple and installed the said idol in the year 1969. The defendant Nos.4 to 6 are the present Administrators of the Parthivapuram Temple and in view of the evidence that they did not know about the person who had constructed the Parthivapuram Temple and who had installed the suit related idol in the temple their claim of ownership of idol can not be accepted. Therefore, the suit idol belonged to the plaintiffs' family members and the same was given to the temple of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 through the process of wrongful conversion and the same is in violation of the agreement dated 28.02.1958, which was clearly referred in the suit filed by the said Venugopal Nair and Sudarsananan Nair in the plaint in O.S.No.342 of 1982 and therefore, the question of privity did not arise. When, the plaintiffs established that the idol is their family idol and same was entrusted with Raman Pillai and Velayudam Pillai by agreement dated 28.02.1958 and they have no knowledge about the shifting of the 38/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 said idol to Parthivapuram and the Administrators of the Parthivapuram have no locus to hold the same, it is the duty of the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to prove their legal possession over the idol as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan reported in (2022) 20 SCC 233. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is as follows:-
“82. Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101, that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden but states that when a fact to be proved is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, it is for him to prove it. It applies to cases where the fact is especially within a party's knowledge and to none else. The expression “especially” used in Section 106 means facts that are eminently or exceptionally within one's knowledge. This means a party having personal knowledge of certain facts has a duty to appear as a witness and if he does not go to the witness box, there is a strong presumption against him. In an election petition, the initial burden to prove determination of age of returned candidate lies on the petitioner, however, burden lies on the respondent to prove facts within his special 39/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 knowledge (Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar [Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673] ).
83. The provisions of Section 106 are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden but if he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106.”
31. But, no evidence was adduced to establish their right to hold the said idol in their custody. When the defendant Nos.4 to 6 stepped into shoes of the earlier administrators of the Parthivapuram Temple namely, Venugopal Nair and Sudarsananan Nair who had constructed the temple in the year 1969 and installed the suit idol, the argument of the counsel for the respondent that the agreement dated 03.05.1968 is not binding on the Defendant Nos.4 to 6 on the principle that there was no privity of contract is a misconceived one and the same deserves to be rejected. The idol was in the custody of the defendants Nos.4 to 6 without any right and the plaintiffs established their title and right over the suit related idol, 40/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 The plea of the respondents that the suit filed for a mandatory injunction without declaration also does not hold water and the same is also rejected.
32. This Court has power under Section 100 of C.P.C., to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the Courts below on the ground of perversity in the finding, misapplication of the law and improper appreciation of the facts. In this case, this Court finds non application of mind, perversity and improper appreciation of fact and also there is no proper considertion of the documents filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, this Court inclines to interfere with the finding of both the Courts below.
33. The plaintiffs' relief comes under one of the provision of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even though they established their right to such specific relief, this court has to consider the principle of equity in certain circumstances. In this case, the suit related idol is the property of the plaintiffs' family. They entered into an agreement with one Raman Pillai and Velayudam Pillai to install the said idol in the village Devicode. They found some difficulties in performing the poojas to the 41/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 said idol and hence, they had transferred the said idol to the Venugopal Nair and Sudarsenanan Nair as per the agreement dated 03.05.1968. They constructed the temple at Parthivapuram and they installed the idol in the said temple in the year 1969. Even though, there is no bar to relocate the same through the agreement dated 28.02.1958, only breach of condition is that they have not obtained permission from the family members of the plaintiffs and they transferred the idol without informing and without knowledge of the family members of the plaintiffs. The idol was installed in the year 1969 in the Parthivapuram Temple and they conducted the annual function in that temple in the name of “Kumba Bharani Day” every year. The people in the Parthivapuram Village and the neighbouring village have been participating in the said function since 1969. Their faith has to be respected and valued along with the rights of plaintiffs to get back the idol. In view of the established factual circumstances that “Madu Panickar” had installed the said idol in their family temple, the plaintiff's right to get back the suit idol from the defendant Nos.4 to 6 is also crystallized. There is undisputed evidence available on record, that the seventh defendant namely, the grandson of the “Madu Panicker” had been performing the poojas in the 42/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Parthivapuram Temple. In the above circumstances, to balance the equity, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal partly by answering all the substaintial questions of law framed in favor of the appellants on the following terms:
33.1. The appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to decree for mandatory injunction to get back the idol from the custody of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 with a rider that the defendant Nos.4 to 6 or any other person who would be in the management of the Parthivapuram Temple are entitled to 15 days interim custody of the said suit idol to perform the poojas in the Parthivapuram Temple on “Kumba Bharani Day” every year.
34. Accordingly, the second appeal is partly allowed on the following terms:-
1. The appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to decree for mandatory injunction and the respondents/defendant Nos.4 to 6 are hereby directed to return the suit idol to the custody of the appellants/plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to file a 43/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 proper execution petition before the learned Trial Judge.
2. The Administrators of the Parthivapuram Temple are entitled to get 15 days interim custody of the suit idol on the eve of the “Kumba Bharani Day” function of every year.
3. The appellants/plaintiffs and their successors are hereby directed to entrust 15 days interim custody of the suit related idol on the eve of “Kumba Bharani Day” function every year with the Administrator of the Parthivapuram Temple on receipt of the request made by the Administrators of the Parthivapuram Temple.
4. The Administrators of the Parthivapuram Temple are hereby directed to return the suit related idol after the expiry of 15 days interim custody with the appellants/plaintiffs and their successor.
5. During the 15 days interim custody, the Administrators of the Parthivapuram Temple are hereby directed to allow the seventh defendant and his successors to perform poojas.
.09.2025 NCC :Yes/No 44/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No dss To
1.The Camp Court, Kuzhithurai, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.
2. The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
3.The Section Officer, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
45/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm ) S.A.(MD).No.159 of 2018 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss S.A.(MD)No.159 of 2018 03.09.2025 46/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 01:07:15 pm )