Madras High Court
Shifa Housing (P) Ltd vs /129 on 28 April, 2016
2026:MHC:175
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment
19.11.2025 12.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
A.S.(MD)Nos.84, 85 and 103 of 2016, 156 & 157 of 2024
and
Cross Objection (MD)No.36 of 2024
&
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5441, 5442, 6649, 7999, 8003 & 8004 of 2016 & 2643 of 2018
A.S.(MD)No.84 of 2016:-
1.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
M.K.M. Mohamed Sherif,
No.82, Kailasapuram Middle Street,
Tirunelveli Junction.
2.M.K.M.Mohamed Sherif
3.M.Aysha Dowladh ... Appellants / Defendants 1 to 3
vs.
1/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
1.Sankaranarayana Swami,
11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund,
Now known as Kuttlammal Religious and Charitable Trust,
By its sole Trustee Sri.V.S.Velayutham,
No.125, Thilagarpuram Main Road,
Ambasamuthiram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Arulmigu Gomathiambal Sametha
Sri Sankara Narayana Swami Deity,
Through its Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam,
Sankarankoil ... 2nd Respondent /
4th Defendant
3.Khader Mohamed Hussain
4.C.Krishnan
5.Lakshmi Krishnan
6.V.Sankaravadivelu Doss
7.T.L.S.Sreeramakrishnan
8.I.Susila Jayarani
9.T.Thiraviam
10.K.Ramamurthy
11.A.Arumugam
12.M.Yasin Monnan Mohamed
13.M.Abdul Kareen
2/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
14.Kader Mohideen Kader
15.A.Raja
16.V.Rajendran
17.A.Swarnalatha
18.Alphonsa
19.D.Mensil Fathima
20.R.Valli
21.S.Sundaresh Babu
22.Latha Mahendra Mani
23.J.Vijaya
24.Shilpa Juliet
25.S.Sudalaimuthu
26.P.Gomathi Lakshmi
27.P.Solomon
28.Pheras Hameed
29.B.Subasree
30.Ganapathy
31.Singaravelan Gopalakrishnan
32.R.Sankaran
3/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
33.S.Venkatachalam
34.V.Saratha
35.S.P.S.Subramanian
36.F.Arulanatham
37.P.Inbaselvi Sivaji
38.T.Sureka
39.A.Nowsath
40.George Xavier
41.Joseph Xavier
42.Mohammed Kaja Mohideen
43.T.P.S.H.Parthiban Ramsait
44.N.Padmanabhan
45.S.Shanmugasundaram
46.P.Ravikumar
47.S.Thirumalaikumar
48.M.Karthik
49.S.Rajeshkumar
50.M.Chellammal
4/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
51.N.Sankar Kumar
52.V.Kanthimathi
53.M.Tamil Selvi
54.S.Ravi
55.R.Valli
56.M.Lidwin Mary
57.M.Sivasamy
58.G.Kalyani
59.R.Subramanian
60.V.Annamalai
61.A.Kannan
62.K.Hariharan
63.S.Manikandan
64.R.Meenakshi
65.M.P.Shanmuganathan
66.G.Suresh
67.R.R.Muthulakshmi
68.P.Subramanian
69.P.Easwaramurthy
5/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
70.S.Murugan
71.A.Ahmed Rafi
72.K.Mahadevan
73.A.Jawahar Beevi
74.Gnansampathar Muthusattanathan
75.K.Ramanathan
76.Vasanthi Ramanathan
77.Asan Anisha
78.Jayapadmanabhan
79.S.Ibrahimmal
80.K.N.Ramani
81.P.Ramesh Kannan
82.Alima Anwar
83.Sethuraman Vinod
84.N.Rajesh Narayanan
85.Indra
86.S.Ayisha Latha
87.M.Thirumalaikumar
6/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
88.R.Mahadevan
89.J.Ramdevi
90.R.Sakthivel
91.S.Sivakumar
92.K.R.Ramani
93.Minor N.Irfana,
D/o.Late. Naina Mohamed,
Rep. through her Mother and Guardian,
Sarabanu
94.D.Sundaravalli
95.S.Yadhava Krishnan
96.A.Hemayun Kabir
97.M.Kadar Meeran Mohideen
98.G.Manipushan
99.Fathima Banu Majahirin
100.Sareena Abdul Kader
101.L.Pushpa
102.S.Subramanian ... Respondents 3 to 102 /
Defendants 5 to 104
7/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code against the common judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016
passed in O.S.No.117 of 2010, on the file of I Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For R2 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R4, R5, R7 to R17, R22 to R39,
R42 to R44, R48, R50, R52,
R54 to R59, R61, R62, R64, R66,
R67, R69 to R73, R75 to R77, R79,
R82 to R86, R91, R93 to R95,
R97 and R102 : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan
For R18, R19, R21, R40, R41, R45,
R47, R49, R60, R63 and R68 : No Appearance
A.S.(MD)No.85 of 2016:-
1.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
M.K.M. Mohamed Shafi,
No.82, Kailasapuram Middle Street,
Tirunelveli Junction.
8/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
2.M.K.M.Mohamed Shafi
3.M.Aysha Dowladh ... Appellants / Defendants 3 to 5
vs.
1.Arulmigu Sankara Narayana Swami Thirukoil,
Sankarankoil,
Through its Assistant Commissioner /
Executive Officer, ... 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukoil,
11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund,
Now known as Kuttlammal Religious and Charitable Trust,
By its Trustee Sri.V.S.Velayutham,
Ambasamuthiram. ... 2nd Respondent / 1st Defendant
3.V.S.Velayutham ... 3rd Respondent / 2nd Defendant
4.The Sub-Registrar,
Melapalayam,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... 4th Respondent / 6th Defendant
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil
Procedure Code against the common judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016
passed in O.S.No.85 of 2011, on the file of I Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.R.Laxman
9/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
For R1 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R2 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For R3 : Mr.S.Joseph Arockiyaraj
For R4 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2016:-
1.C.Krishnan
2.Lakshmi Krishnan
3.T.L.S.Sreeramakrishnan
4.I.Susila Jayarani
5.T.Thiraviam
6.K.Ramamurthy
7.A.Arumugam
8.M.Yasin Monnan Mohamed
9.M.Abdul Kareem
10.Kader Mohideen Kader
11.A.Raja
12.V.Rajendran
10/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
13.A.Swarnalatha
14.R.Valli
15.J.Vijaya
16.Shiba Juliet
17.S.Sudalaimuthu
18.P.Gomathi Lakshmi
19.P.Solomon
20.Pheras Hameed
21.B.Subasree
22.Ganapathy Muthukumar
23.R.Sankaran
24.S.Venkatachalam
25.V.Saradha
26.S.P.S.Subramanian
27.F.Arulanantham
28.P.Inbaselvi Sivaji
29.T.Sureka
30.A.Nowsath
31.T.P.S.H.Parthiban Ramsait
11/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
32.N.Padmanabhan
33.M.Karthik
34.M.Chellammal
35.V.Kanthimathi
36.M.Lidwin Mary
37.M.Sivasamy
38.G.Kalyani
39.R.Subramanian
40.K.Hariharan
41.R.Meenakshi
42.G.Suresh
43.R.Muthulakshmi
44.P.Easwaramurthy
45.S.Murugan
46.K.Mahadevan
47.K.Ramanathan
48.Vasanthi Ramanathan
49.S.Ibrahimmal
12/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
50.Alima Anwar
51.Sethuraman Vinod
52.N.Rajesh Narayanan
53.S.Ayisha Latha
54.S.Sivakumar
55.D.Sundaravalli
56.S.Yadhava Krishnan
57.M.Kadar Meeran Mohideen ... Appellants /
Defendants 6, 7, 9 to 19, 22,
25 to 33, 41, 45, 46, 50, 52,
54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66,
68, 69, 72, 74, 77, 78, 81,
84, 85, 86, 88, 93, 97 & 99
vs.
1.Sankaranarayana Swami,
11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund,
Now known as Kuttlammal Religious and Charitable Trust,
Having Office at Agasthiyar East Street,
Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District,
By its sole Trustee V.S.Velayutham,
S/o.A.V.R.M.V.Sankaranarayana Mudaliar,
Residing at No.125, Thilagarpuram Main Road,
Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
M.K.M.Mohamed Shafi,
13/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
No.82, Kailasapuram Middle Street,
Tirunelveli Junction,
Tirunelveli.
3.M.K.M.Mohamed Shafi
4.M.Aysha Dowladh
5.Arulmigu Gomathiambal Sametha
Sri Sankara Narayana Swami Deity,
Through its Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam,
Sankarankoil,
Tirunelveli District.
6.Khader Mohamed Hussain
7.V.Sankaravadivelu Doss
8.Alphonsa
9.D.Mensil Fathima
10.S.Sundaresh Babu
11.Latha Mahendra Mani
12.Singaravelan Gopalakrishnan
13.George Xavier
14.Joseph Xavier
15.Mohamed Kaja Mohideen
16.S.Shanmugasundaram
14/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
17.P.Ravikumar
18.S.Thirumalaikumar
19.S.Rajeshkumar
20.N.Sankara Kumar
21.M.Tamil Selvi
22.S.Ravi
23.R.Valli
24.V.Annamalai
25.A.Kannan
26.S.Manikandan
27.M.P.Shanmuganathan
28.P.Subramanian
29.Ahmed Rafi
30.A.Jawahar Deen
31.Gnansampathar Muthusattanathan
32.Asan Anisha
33.Jayapadmanabhan
34.K.N.Ramani
35.P.Ramesh Kannan
15/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
36.Indira
37.M.Thirumalaikumar
38.R.Mahadevan
39.J.Ramdevi
40.R.Sakthivel
41.K.R.Ramani
42.Minor N.Irfana
D/o. Late.Naina Mohamed,
Rep. through her Mother and Guardian, Sarabanu
43.A.Hemayun Kabir
44.G.Manipushan
45.Fathima Banu Majahirin
46.Sareena Abdul Kader
47.L.Pushpa
48.S.Subramanian ... Respondents 2 to 48 /
Defendants 8, 20, 21, 23, 24, 33,
42 to 44, 47 to 49, 51, 53,
55 to 57, 62, 65, 67, 70, 73, 75,
76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 87, 89 to 92,
94, 98 and 100 to 104
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of
Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 passed
16/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
in O.S.No.117 of 2010, on the file of I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellants 1, 2, 6 to 11,
14, 22, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35,
38, 40, 42 & 45 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muralitharan
For Appellants 3, 4, 20, 21, 23,
26, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43,
44, 46 & 50 to 57 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Subramanian
For Appellants 5, 12, 13, 15 to 17,
19, 24, 25, 27, 29 & 47 to 49 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Akilan
For R1, R5, R8, R10, R14, R16,
R18, R19, R25 to R30, R33,
R42 and R45 : No Appearance
For R2 to R4 : Mr.S.Hajamohideen Gisthi
A.S.(MD)No.156 of 2024:-
Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil,
Sankarankovil Town,
Sankarankovil Taluk,
Through its Present Deputy Commissioner /
Administrative Officer ... Appellant / Plaintiff
vs.
1.Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil,
11th day Adithabasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund,
17/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
Now Kuttlammal Religious and Charitable Trust,
Through its Trustee,
V.S.Velayutham,
S/o.A.V.R.M.V.Sankaranarayana Mudaliyar,
Gomathi Mills,
Door No.9, Agasthiyar East Street,
Ambasamudram – 627 401,
Tirunelveli District.
2.V.S.Velayudham
3.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Janab M.K.M.Mohamed Shabi,
No.82, Kailasapuram Middle Street,
Tirunelveli Junction.
4.M.K.M.Mohammed Shabi
5.Ayesha Dowlath
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Melapalayam,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents / Defendants
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against
the common judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.85 of 2011,
on the file of I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
18/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh
For R3 to R5 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R6 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
A.S.(MD)No.157 of 2024:-
Arulmigu Gomathiambal Sametha
Sri Sankaranarayana Swami Deity,
Through its Administrative Officer,
Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellant / 4th Defendant
vs.
1.Sankaranarayanaswamy 11th day Adithabasu
Mandagapadi Ursavam Fund,
Now Kuthalammal Religious and Charitable Trust,
Agasthiyar East Street,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District,
Through its Sole Trustee,
V.S.Velayudham,
S/o.A.V.R.M.V.Sankaranarayana Mudaliyar,
No.125, Thilagarpuram Main Road,
Ambasamuthiram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
19/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
M.K.M. Mohamed Shabi,
No.82, Kailasapuram Middle Street,
Tirunelveli Junction.
3.M.K.M.Mohamed Shabi
4.Ayesha Dowlath
5.Kader Mohammed Hussain
6.C.Krishnan
7.Lakshmi Krishnan
8.V.Sankaravadivelu Doss
9.T.L.S.Sri Ramarkrishnan
10.L.Suseela Jeyarani
11.T.Thiraviyam
12.K.Ramamoorthy
13.A.Arumugam
14.M.Yasin Monan Mohammed
15.M.Abdul Kareem
16.Kader Muhaideen Kader
17.A.Raja
18.V.Rajendran
19.A.Swarnalatha
20/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
20.Alphonsa
21.D.Mensil Fathima
22.R.Valli
23.S.Sundaresh Babu
24.Latha Moahendra Mani
25.J.Vijaya
26.Vasanthi Leela Bai
27.S.Sudalaimuthu
28.P.Gomathi Lakshmi
29.P.Solomon
30.Brass Hameed
31.P.Subashree
32.Ganapathi Muthukumar
33.Singaravelan Gopalakrishnan
34.R.Sankaran
35.S.Venkatachalam
36.M.Mohideen Abdul Kader
37.S.P.S.Subramanian
21/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
38.F.Arulanandam
39.P.Inba Selvi Sivaji
40.T.Sureka
41.A.Nowsath
42.George Xavier
43.Joseph Xavier
R42 and R43 are rep. by their
Power Agent J.Xavier George,
S/o.Joseph Varghese
44.Mohammed Khaja Mohideen
45.T.P.S.H.Parthiban Ramsait
46.N.Padmanabhan
47.S.Shanmugasundaram
48.P.Ravikumar
49.S.Thirumalaikumar
50.M.Karthik
51.S.Rajeshkumar
52.M.Sellammal
53.N.Sanakra Kumar
54.V.Gandhimathi
22/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
55.M.Tamilselvi
56.S.Ravi
57.R.Valli
58.M.Lidwin Mary
59.M.Sivasami
60.G.Kalyani
61.R.Subramanian
62.V.Vanumamalai,
V.Annamalai
63.A.Kannan
64.K.Hariharan
65.S.Manikandan
66.R.Meenakshi
67.M.P.Shanmuganathan
68.G.Suresh
69.R.Muthulakshmi
70.P.Subramanian
71.P.Eshwaramoorthy
72.S.Murugan
23/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
73.A.Ahamed Rafi
74.K.Mahadevan
75.A.Jawahar Deen
76.Gnanasambandar Muthu Sattanathan
77.K.Ramanathan
78.Vasanthi Ramanathan
79.Hasan Anisha
80.Jayapadmanabhan
81.S.Ibrahimmal
82.K.N.Ramani
83.P.Ramesh Kannan
84.Alima Anwar
85.Sethuraman Vinoth
86.N.Rajesh Narayanan
87.Indra
88.S.Ayesha Latha
89.M.Thirumalaikumar
90.R.Mahadevan
24/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
91.J.Ramdevi
92.R.Shakthivel
93.S.Sivakumar
94.K.R.Ramani
95.Minor N.Irfana
D/o. Late. Naina Mohammed,
Rep. through her mother / next friend,
Sara Banu
96.D.Sundaravalli
97.S.Yadava Krishnan
98.A.Hemayun Kabeer
99.M.Kader Meeran Mohideen
100.G.Manibusan
101.Fathima Banu Muzagirin
102.Sareena Abdul Kadar
103.L.Pushpa
104.S.Subramanian ... Respondents 2 to 104 /
Defendants 1 to 3 & 5 to 104
PRAYER : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against
the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.117 of 2010, on the
file of I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
25/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh
For R2 to R4 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R10, R12, R15, R19, R20,
R24, R25, R27, R29, R32,
R37, R41, R44 to R47, R59,
R63, R66 to R72, R80, R81,
R85, R86, R93 & R97 to R99 : No Appearance
Cross Objection (MD)No.36 of 2024:-
1.Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil,
11th day Adithabasu Mandagapadi Ursavam Fund,
Now, Kuthalammal Religious and Charitable Trust,
Through its Trustee,
V.S.Velayudham,
S/o.A.V.R.M.V.Sankaranarayana Mudaliyar,
Gomathi Mills,
Door No.9, Agasthiyar East Street,
Ambasamudram – 627 401,
Tirunelveli District.
2.V.S.Velayudham ... Cross Objectors /
Respondents 1 and 2 /
Defendants 1 and 2
vs.
1.Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil,
26/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
Sankarankovil Town,
Sankarankovil Taluk,
Through its present Deputy Commissioner /
Executive Officer ... 1st Respondent / Appellant /
Plaintiff
2.M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Janab M.K.M. Mohamed Shabi,
No.82, Kailasapuram Middle Street,
Tirunelveli Junction.
3.M.K.M.Mohamed Shabi
4.Ayesha Dowlath
5.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registration Office,
Melapalayam,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents 2 to 5 /
Respondents 3 to 6 /
Defendants 3 to 6
PRAYER : Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 Civil Procedure
Code, to reverse and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 and
dismiss the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional District
Court, Tirunelveli.
For Cross Objectors : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh
For R1 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
27/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
For R2 to R4 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R5 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
All these Appeal Suits and the Cross Objection arise from the common judgment dated 28.04.2016 in O.S.Nos.117 of 2010 and 85 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2. O.S.No.117 of 2010 was filed by Sankaranarayana Swami 11 th Day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund, now known as Kuttammal Religious and Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”), against Shifa Housing (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shifa”), Arulmigu Gomathiambal Sametha Sri Sankaranarayana Swami Deity, represented by its Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the Temple”), and 100 other defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the purchasers”), who had purchased plots in the layout promoted by Shifa, the first defendant, seeking a judgment and decree declaring that the plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff Trust, for recovery of possession from the 28/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) defendants; for mandatory injunction directing demolition of the superstructures in the plaint schedule properties; and for costs of the suit.
3. O.S.No.85 of 2011 was initially filed as O.S.No. 566 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, by Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukovil, represented by its Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer, against the plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 2010 (the Trust), Shifa, and the Sub- Registrar, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, seeking a judgment and decree declaring that the suit schedule properties are specific religious endowment properties created in favour of the first defendant Trust, together with permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or putting up any houses or constructions in the plaint schedule properties; permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant / Sub-Registrar from registering any sale deed or other documents relating to the plaint schedule properties; mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the houses and constructions put up in the plaint schedule properties; and for costs of the suit.
29/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
4. The plaint schedule properties in both suits are common. The Trust claims to be the absolute owner of the properties, and seeks recovery of possession from the purchasers, and also seeks a mandatory injunction directing demolition of the superstructures constructed on the said properties.
5. In O.S.No.85 of 2011, the Temple sought a declaration that the properties are specific religious endowment properties created by the Trust and sought permanent injunction restraining any further alienation or encumbrance, as well as an injunction against the Sub-Registrar from registering any document relating to the suit properties. A mandatory injunction was also sought for demolition of the houses and constructions put up in the suit schedule properties.
6. By common judgment dated 28.04.2016, the Trial Court declared that the suit schedule properties are specific religious endowment properties created by the Trust and, consequently, granted permanent injunction restraining any further alienation or encumbrance over the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court also granted mandatory injunction directing demolition within a period of six months of all constructions put up in the suit schedule properties. However, the Trial 30/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Court refused to grant the relief sought by the Temple for delivery of possession of the properties. The relief sought against the Sub-Registrar was also dismissed.
7. Challenging the said judgment and decree, Shifa filed A.S.(MD) Nos.84 and 85 of 2016; the purchasers filed A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2016 against the judgment in O.S.No.117 of 2010; and the Temple filed A.S.(MD)Nos.156 and 157 of 2024 against the judgment in both the suits. The Trust filed Cross Objection (MD)No.36 of 2024 seeking to reverse and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.85 of 2011.
8. Shifa and the purchasers are aggrieved by the direction to vacate and hand over vacant possession, as well as by the grant of mandatory injunction directing demolition of the constructions put up in the suit schedule properties. The Temple is aggrieved by the refusal to grant vacant possession of the suit schedule properties. The Trust is aggrieved by that portion of the judgment declaring the properties to be specific religious endowment properties. O.S.No.85 of 2011 [I Additional District Court at Tirunelveli] [O.S.No.566 of 2007, Principal District Munsif Court at Tirunelveli]:-
31/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
9. The plaintiff, Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukovil, represented by its Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer stated that the properties described in Item Nos.1 to 5 of the schedule should be declared as specific religious endowment properties created by the first defendant, Sankaranarayana Swami 11th Day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund, now known as Kuttammal Religious and Charitable Trust. Since the said properties had been dealt with by the other defendants, including Shifa, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining any further encumbrances and also mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession. The title to each item of the suit schedule properties were traced in the following manner:-
(i) Item No.1:-
The original owner, A.Rengaraj, sold this property to the Trust by a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1985, registered as Document No.75 of 1985 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, for a consideration of Rs.22,590/–.
(ii) Item No.2:-
The original owners, John Thangasami and three others, sold the property to the Trust by a registered sale deed dated 18.03.1985, registered as Document 32/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) No. 925 of 1985, for a total consideration of Rs. 28,900/–.
(iii) Item No.3:-
The original owner, P.Pakkiyanatha Nadar, sold the property to the first defendant Trust by a registered sale deed dated 09.10.1985, for a total consideration of Rs. 8,640/–.
(iv) Item No.4:-
The original owners, S.Ebinezar Ammal and two others, sold the property by a registered sale deed dated 17.02.1986, for a total consideration of Rs.4,020/–.
(v) Item No.5:-
The original owners, Pechiammal alias Pappa and 12 others, sold the property to the first defendant by a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1985, for a consideration of Rs. 11,250/–.
10. It had been further contended that the first defendant/Trust is a public trust. Its object is to celebrate and conduct the entire 11th day Mandagapadi 33/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) festival of Sri Sankaranarayana Swami Sametha Gomathi Amman of Sri Sankaranarayanaswamy Devasthanam, Sankarankovil, and to perform Abishekams, Alangarams, the procession of the holy deities, to feed the poor, to run the water pandal, and to carry out all Paditharams, including musical concerts, Upanyasams, and every other activity connected with the 11th day Mandagapadi festival. It had been stated that the Trust changed its name to “Kuttalammal Religious and Charitable Trust” with effect from 07.09.1989.
11. It is the specific case of the plaintiff Temple that the lands are Kattalai lands, signifying a specific religious endowment with a duty to perform the Kattalais to the plaintiff Temple, and that the endowment was created by the Trust. The second defendant had been a Trustee from the inception of the Trust. It had been stated that the second defendant had a duty to maintain the properties of the Trust. It had been further stated that the plaintiff Temple applied for an Encumbrance Certificate relating to the plaint schedule properties for a period of 27 years from 01.01.1980 to 18.09.2007, but found that there were no encumbrances.
34/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
12. The Trust had sent a letter on 31.05.2007 to the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board, Chennai, stating that the defendants 3 to 5 / Shifa had purchased an extent of 12 acres and 29 cents of land in S.No.9 and an extent of 2 acres and 85 cents of land in S.No.11, totalling 15 acres and 14 cents, in Kongathanparai, from certain persons. However, these encumbrances were not reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. It had been contended that the Temple came to know about such conveyance only from the Trust's letter dated 31.05.2007.
13. The plaintiff contended that the properties are Kattalai properties forming a specific religious endowment, and that under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, any alienation, including sale, mortgage, or a lease exceeding five years, of any immovable property endowed with the Temple shall be null and void. It was further alleged that Shifa was a trespasser on the property. The plaintiff Temple also contended that Shifa had formed a housing society called “Shifa Golden City” to construct 333 houses and sell them to intending purchasers. It was further contended that the Trustee had not acted in accordance with the objects of the Trust. There had also been correspondences relating to the encumbrances created. 35/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
14. It had been stated that neither the Trustee nor any person claiming rights in the Trust property can have or claim any independent right, but only carry out the objects of the Trust. It was contended that Shifa cannot claim any title over the property. It was under these circumstances that the suit was filed, seeking a declaration that the properties are specific religious endowment Trust properties, and restraining any further alienation or encumbrance over the said properties, and seeking a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of houses constructed on the said properties.
15. The Trust / the defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying and disputing the contentions raised by the plaintiff. It was stated that the lands are neither Kattalai lands nor had had been purchased for conducting the Mandagapadi of the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival in the plaintiff Temple. It was contended that there is a substantial difference between Kattalai and Mandagapadi. It was further stated that the husband of Kuttalammal had been conducting the Mandagapadi until 1945, and thereafter, his sons continued the 36/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) said activity. Subsequently, Kuttalammal created a fund for conducting Mandagapadi by a registered deed dated 26.02.1975. It was contended that the properties had not been conveyed to the plaintiff Temple. It was also stated that the objects of the Trust were further widened by a Codicil dated 07.09.1989.
16. It was contended that, on a combined reading of the Deed of Trust dated 26.02.1975 and the Codicil dated 07.09.1989, conducting the Mandagapadi on the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival in the Temple is only one of the activities of the Trust, and therefore, the properties cannot be termed Kattalai properties.
17. It was further contended that the plaintiff Temple had earlier filed O.S.No.146 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Tenkasi, which was renumbered as O.S.No.22 of 2000 and transferred to the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. The said suit had been filed by the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Navaneethakrishnaswamy Temple, Veerakeralamputhur, and the right of the plaintiff therein to conduct the 11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi had been recognised. The second defendant had filed an appeal against the same, which was pending at the time of filing the written statement. It was contended that there was no intention to dedicate the lands to 37/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the plaintiff Temple.
18. It had been further stated that the Trust had not divested itself of the properties and that there was no dedication of the properties, either absolute or partial, to the Deity or to the plaintiff Temple. It was further stated that there was no intention to alienate the properties. However, it was admitted that the defendants 3 to 5 had purchased the properties from third parties and not from the defendants 1 and 2. It was contended that the Trust was not aware of the nature of those transactions or the rights and manner in which the transactions had been effected.
19. It was stated that Shifa had claimed that they had mistakenly obtained the sale deeds from third parties and that they had also agreed to abide by any amicable legal solution. It was further stated that the letter dated 31.05.2007 had been issued to the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., only to protect the interests of the first defendant Trust. It was contended that any other interpretation of the said letter was mischievous and incorrect. It was also contended that the trust does not come under the purview of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable 38/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Endowments Act, 1959. It was also stated that the plaintiff Temple has no locus standi to file the suit and it was claimed that therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
20.M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., / 3rd to 5th defendants filed a written statement contesting the stand of the Trust that they were in continuous possession of the lands. They denied and disputed the title of the Trust to the suit schedule properties. They specifically denied that the properties were Kattalai properties and that they were burdened with specific religious endowments with duty to perform the Kattalies of the plaintiff Temple. It was also contended that since the property does not belong either to the Temple or to the Trust, the provisions of the HR & CE Act would not be attracted so far as the properties are concerned.
21.It had been contended that the 3rd defendant is a company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act and the said defendants are the absolute title holders of the properties and continued to be in lawful possession of the same. They had plotted out the lands and sold them as house sites in the name of Shifa Golden City. The purchasers have constructed houses and are in possession 39/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) of the same. It had thus been stated that the claim of the Temple or of the Trust are false. It had also been stated that patta had been mutated in the name of Shifa and there had been specific mutation in the names of the subsequent purchasers. The locus of the vendors of the lands to convey the properties to the Trust was also specifically questioned. The flow of title had also been stated.
22.It had been stated that the lands at Kongathanparai Village in various survey numbers including S.Nos.9, 10 and 11 belonged to the following (23) members namely, 1.Vedamuthu Nadar, 2.Paramanatha Nadar, 3.Sathyanantha Nadar, 4.Kulanthaivel Nadar, 5.Samvel Nadar, 6.Samvel Nadar, 7.Vaikunta Nadar,
8.Sivany Nadar, 9.Shanmuga Nadar, 10.Swamikannu Nadar, 11.Packiaratha Nadar, 12.Panniah Nadar, 13.Yesuvadiyan Nadar, 14.Vedakannu Nadar,
15.Yanohu Nadar, 16.Esakkimuthu Nadar, 17.Rama Nadar, 18.Narayana Nadar,
19.Perumal Nadar, 20.Seeradi Nadar purchased from Sethu Subramania Pillai,
21.Velu Thevar, 22.Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and 23.Konathu Mohammed Kaseem Tharanganar.
23.It had been further stated that the legal heirs of Velu Thevar, Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar, Konathu Mohammed Kaseem alienated their 40/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) property to various persons and had entered into a registered deed dated 15.05.2006 under Document No.2767/2006 claiming to have an undivided share in the suit schedule properties. The partition deed also revealed the date of execution of the documents and the details of the sale deeds of the respective parties. Therefore, all the claimants were co-owners and they divided the property at Konkanthanparai Village with specific boundaries for their respective shares and continued to enjoy them absolutely. The 66th to 69th persons in the partition deed namely, Balakrishnan, Paulraj, Arunachalam and Mookan were allotted the properties, scheduled as 36th schedule in the partition deed. The 1st item to 36th item in the partition deed are the lands in Ayan Punja Survey No.9 measuring 15 Acre and 35 cents in Konganthanparai Village.
24.It had been stated that the said Balakrishnan, Paulraj, Arunachalam and Mookan conveyed their lands in favour of M/s.Shifa Housing Pvt. Ltd., / 3rd defendant by a sale deed dated 30.06.2006 under Doc. No.3351 of 2006 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.7,67,500/-. It had been further stated that M/s.Shifa Housing Pvt. Ltd., alienated the land measuring 4.77 acres in the middle of S.No.9 out of a total area of 15.35 acres in and by a sale deed dated 28.07.2006 to Mrs.Ayisha Dowlath / 5th defendant.
41/129https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
25.Similarly, Mrs.Ayisha Dowlath purchased the property in S.No.10 to an extent of 2 acres and 1 cent described as item No.2 above and also in S.No.11 to an extent of 2 acres and 55 cents on the southern side of western portion consisting of 5 acres and 55 cents out of the total extent of 19 acres and 14 cents by a sale deed dated 31.03.2006 executed by P.Udayar and Alfred as power agent of P.Chelladurai and 21 others.
26.Similarly, the 4th defendant, Mohammed Shafi, purchased the lands in S.No.11 to an extent of 3 acres on the northern side of the western portion consisting of 5 acres and 55 cents out of the total area of 19 acres and 14 cents by a sale deed dated 31.08.2006 executed by P.Udayar and Alfred as power agent of P.Chelladurai and 21 others.
27.It had been further stated that M/s.Shifa Housing Pvt. Ltd., had obtained clear title of the 21 properties. It had been stated that the Encumbrance Certificate dated 12.09.2006 for a period of 10 years from 01.01.1977 to 31.12.1998, the subsequent Encumbrance Certificate for a period of 20 years from 01.01.1987 to 19.02.2006, and a further Encumbrance Certificate for a 42/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) period of one year from 01.02.2006 to 26.06.2006 and another Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.09.2006 for a period of 10 years from 01.01.1997 to 31.01.1987 and a further Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.09.2006 for a period of 20 years from 01.01.1987 to 10.09.2006 relating to the plaint schedule properties do not reflect the name of the plaintiff or the 1st defendant.
28.It is thus contended that M/s.Shifa Housing Pvt. Ltd., had absolute title over the suit schedule properties and that the Trust had no title to the properties. It had been stated that after the plots had been purchased, the same had been conveyed to a large number of purchasers who had also constructed buildings. The present suit had been filed after all these transactions and constructions. It had been stated that without prejudice to their rights, M/s.Shifa Housing Pvt. Ltd., had offered a settlement proposal. It had been finally stated that the suit is bereft of merits and has to be dismissed.
O.S.No.117 of 2010 (On the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.):-
29.This Suit had been filed by the Trust / Sankaranarayana Swami 11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund now known as Kuttammal Religious and Charitable Trust seeking a declaration that the plaint schedule properties 43/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) belong to the Trust and for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction directing demolition of superstructure of suit schedule properties and for costs of the suit.
30.It had been stated that the plaintiff Trust is a Religious Charitable Trust created by a Trust Deed dated 26.02.1975 with object to celebrate and conduct the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival of Sri Sankaranarayana Swami Sametha Gomathiammal Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam including abishekam, alankaram, procession of deities, feeding the poor, distributing water, arranging musical concerts or upanyashams etc. It was started with a corpus of Rs.20,000/-. The deed provided that the trustees can acquire properties for the purpose of the Trust and to dispose or sell the same, to carry on business, with intention to promote the object of the Trust. Subsequently, a Codicil was registered on 07.09.1989 changing the name of the Trust. It had been contended that the plaint schedule properties have been purchased by sale deeds dated 11.01.1985, 09.10.1985, 18.03.1985 and 17.02.1986. It had been further stated that the Trust had been in possession and enjoyment of the lands from the date of the purchase. It had been further stated that in S.No.9 Kongathanparai Village at Palayamkottai, the total area of land was 15.35 acres, out of which, the plaintiff Trust was the 44/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) owner of 12.29 acres. Similarly, in S.No.11, the total area was 19.14 acres and the plaintiff Trust had purchased 2.85 acres. It had been contended that the title of the plaintiff had also been recognized by the Government. It had been further contended that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., also claimed that they had purchased properties and began to put up constructions in the year 2006, though they have no right or title over the properties.
31. It had been stated that before the Trust could initiate legal action, the 4th defendant / Temple filed a suit before the Additional District Munsif Court at Tirunelveli, in O.S.No.566 of 2007 seeking a declaration and injunction and also mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions put up by the defendants. In that particular suit, the Trust was arrayed as a defendant. They had also filed their written statement. It was stated that during the pendency of the suit, the parties were advised to settle the issues. It had been further stated that the defendants are taking every steps to put up further construction to create further alienations. It was under those circumstances that this suit was filed.
32.It must be mentioned that it was only during the pendency of the suit that the temple was impleaded as the 4th defendant.
45/129https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
33.The 1st and 3rd defendants filed their written statement denying and disputing the claim of the plaintiff Trust. It was also claimed that proper Court fees had not been paid in accordance with the valuation of the land or the provisions of the Court Fees Act. It had been stated that M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., had converted the suit properties into house sites and between 13.11.2006 and 27.05.2010, nearly 125 plots had been sold to a total extent of 6 acres and 81 cents for a total consideration of Rs.2,74,30,572/- at the guideline value of Rs.40,000/- per cent of land. The extent of the remaining unsold property was 8 acres and 33 cents. It had been stated that the suit had not been properly valued and necessary Court fees had not been paid. It was very specifically denied that the Trust had any right or title over the suit properties. It had been contended that M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., had purchased the land, formed a housing society and divided the land into plots and thereafter, sold the same for adequate consideration. It had been stated that neither the Trust nor the Temple had taken any step to prevent further constructions. It had been stated that the only object was to grab the properties of M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd,, which had been lawfully purchased and conveyed to its purchasers. It had been further stated that the properties originally belonged to 23 individuals members, namely, 46/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
1.Vedamuthu Nadar, 2.Paramanatha Nadar, 3.Sathyanantha Nadar, 4.Kulanthaivel Nadar, 5.Samvel Nadar, 6.Samvel Nadar, 7.Vaikunta Nadar, 8.Sivany Nadar,
9.Shanmuga Nadar, 10.Swamikannu Nadar, 11.Packiaratha Nadar, 12.Panniah Nadar, 13.Yesuvadiyan Nadar, 14.Vedakannu Nadar, 15.Yanohu Nadar,
16.Esakkimuthu Nadar, 17.Rama Nadar, 18.Narayana Nadar, 19.Perumal Nadar,
20.Seeradi Nadar purchased from Sethu Subramania Pillai, 21.Velu Thevar,
22.Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and 23.Konathu Mohammed Kaseem Tharanganar. It had thus been contended that the suit should be dismissed.
34.A reply statement had been filed by the plaintiff denying and disputing the contention of M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., and setting out in detail the flow of title of the lands leading to their purchase. It had been stated that after the purchase of the lands by the Trust, and after due inspection, the Director of Land Reforms had also recommended and granted permission under Section 37B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 recognizing the authority of the Trust to hold the lands. It had been stated that separate patta had also been obtained by the Trust. It had been further stated that after the purchase of the land by the Trust, there had been various encumbrances made, in which the Trust was not a party. It had been further stated that a Mandagapadi is a specific endowment attached to 47/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Arulmigu Gomathiammbal Sametha Sri Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam at Sankarankovil, under the Control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. It had therefore been stated that the Trust had also made an application on 31.05.2007 before the 1st respondent under Section 37 of the Act. It had been further stated that in the meanwhile, the temple had also filed a suit seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions put up. It had been stated that the Temple has no manner or right over the property and that the suit should be decreed.
35.The private purchasers had filed a written statement under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC. The written statement was filed by the 47th defendant. In the said written statement, it had been stated that the claim of the Trust of conducting Mandagapadi was false. It had been contended that the Trust was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The claim of the Trust of purchase of the properties was denied and disputed. It had been stated that the 47th defendant had purchased land measuring 5 acres and 67 cents in S.No.9 out of the total extent of 15 acres and 38 cents and measurements by metes and bounds were also carried out and sale deed was also registered on 16.04.2007. It had been stated that the private defendants were in lawful possession of the land 48/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) and had put up constructions after obtaining necessary permission from the Panchayat. It had therefore been stated that the suit should be dismissed.
36.An additional written statement had been filed by M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., / D1 and D2. It had been contended that the sale deeds under which the Trust had purchased the properties are void, since the Trust had not obtained prior sanction under Section 37(B) of the Land Reforms Act. It had been stated that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff Trust to maintain the suit and also the reliefs therein including the relief of recovery of possession or the relief of mandatory injunction. It had been stated that the Temple had already filed a suit, which is pending and therefore, this suit is superfluous. It had been contended that therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
37.Written Statements had also been filed by the 5th, 49th and 56th defendants on the same lines as the written statement filed by the 47th defendant again claiming title over the property purchased by them and seeking dismissal of the suit.
38.The 4th defendant temple had also filed a written statement contending 49/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) that the properties belonging to the plaintiff trust are absolute properties of specific religious endowment. It had been denied that only a charge had been claimed over the properties, as claimed by the plaintiff. It had been further sated that the plaintiff has been conducting the festival of the temple, particularly with the specific endowment attached to the Temple from the time of creation of the Trust. It had therefore been stated that the plaintiff has no manner of right or title over the properties, but the properties are bound by the specific religious and endowment to conduct the 11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi of Sri Sankaranarayana Temple.
39.With respect to the partition deed, it had been contended that all the owners of the property were not parties to the partition deed. Specifically, the Trust was not a party to the partition deed. It had therefore been contended that the partition deed should be rejected by the Court. It was finally claimed that the Court should declare the suit properties are specific religious endowment properties.
40.On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed for 50/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) trial.
41.During trial, the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2010 was taken as the lead suit. The plaintiff examined ten witnesses as PW-1 to PW-10 and marked Exs.A1 to A66. The defendants examined five witnesses as DW-1 to DW-5 and marked Exs.B1 to B124. Exs.C1 to C4 were also marked and CW-1 also examined.
42.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in A.S No.84 of 2016 and A.S No.85 of 2016 and in A.S.No.103 of 2016 took the Court through the facts of the case. He stated that A.S.No.84 of 2016 had been filed questioning the judgment and decree in O.S.No.117 of 2010 filed by the Trust and A.S No.85 of 2016 had been filed questioning the judgment and decree in O.S.No.85 of 2011 filed by the Temple. Both the appeals have been filed by M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd. The learned Senior Counsel stated that Shifa had purchased lands which were the subject matter of the two suits by registered documents and had obtained permission from the appropriate authorities for forming a layout and had thereafter sub-divided the lands into plots and had also sold the plots to more than 120 purchasers. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that these transactions had taken place from the year 2007 onwards and the 51/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) purchasers have also taken possession and their names have also been mutated in the revenue records. He further stated that on the strength of their purchase, the purchasers had also constructed residential buildings. They had also filed A.S.No. 103 of 2016 questioning the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the Trust which claims title to the properties had not taken any steps whatsoever to question or challenge these sale deeds. The learned Senior counsel argued that the Trust had actually acquiescenced to the sale of the plots and the constructions put up thereon. The learned Senior Counsel stated that in view of the inaction of the Trust, the only conclusion which could be drawn is that the Trust was not sure about their title and it is for that reason that they had never raised any objection during the time when constructions were put up and revenue records were mutated in the names of the third parties.
43.The learned Senior Counsel traced the title of the properties by stating that the total area of the lands was 243 acres in 22 separate survey numbers at Kongathanparai Village, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. The survey numbers involved in the litigation were S.Nos.9 and 11. In S.No.9, the total area involved was 15.35 acres and S.No.11, the total area was 19.14 acres. 52/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
44.The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the entire area of 243 acres had fallen to the share of three brothers namely, Venkatachalam Pillai who was entitled to 1/2 share of the total area, which was 121.5 acres and Chidambaram Pillai who was entitled to an undivided 1/4th share which was an area of 60.75 acres and Namachivayam Pillai who was entitled to the remaining 1/4th undivided share to an extent of 60.75 acres. Out of the 121.5 acres, which fell to the share of Venkatachalam Pillai, the area of land in S.No.9 was 7.67 ½ acres and in S.No.11, the total area of land was 9.57 acres. The learned Senior Counsel stated that Venkatachalam Pillai had a son called Sethusubramaniam Pillai. He had sold his 1/2 share by five sale deeds, Exs.A11, A12, A13, A14 and A15 all dated 05.01.1915.
45.With respect to 60.75 acres belonging to Chidambaram Pillai, the area of land in S.No.9 was 3.84 acres and in S.No.11, the area of land was 4.78 ½ acres. Chidambaram Pillai son of Sethusubramaniam Pillai had two sons namely, Rajagopalakrishna Pillai and Arumugam Pillai. By devolution, they both had an undivided 1/8th share each. Rajagopalakrishnan sold his undivided 1/8th share to Velu Thevar by Ex.A16 dated 16.08.1943. Arumugapillai had three sons namely, Sethusubramaniam, Veerabagu and Rajagopalakrishnan. They sold their 53/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) undivided 1/8th share under Ex.A17 dated 07.02.1944 to Velu Thevar.
46.The learned Senior Counsel contended that the legal heirs of Velu Thevar had sold the 5th item of suit schedule property under Ex.A3 / Ex.A24 dated 11.01.1985 to the Trust. The Trust had therefore purchased in S.No.9, 1.92 acres and in S.No.11, 0.58 acre.
47.With respect to the land which devolved to Namachivayam Pillai measuring total area of 60.75 acres, the land in S.No.9 measured 3.84 acres and the land in S.No.11 measured 4.78 ½ acres. Namachivayam Pillai had a son Venkatachalam Pillai. There was a partition effected in Ex.B4 on 13.09.1940. Venkatachalam Pillai had three sons namely, Namachivayam, Koothanainar, Kasiviswanath. Namachivayam and Kasiviswanath under partition were allotted 1/8th undivided share. Koothanainar was allotted other lands. Namachivayam and Kasiviswanath sold their undivided 1/8th share by sale deeds under Exs.A18 and A19 respectively both dated 10.04.1944 to Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar. There was a partition effected under Ex.A20 dated 24.01.1952 and Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar became entitled to an undivided 2/3 share and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar 54/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) became entitled to an undivided 1/3 share. They had sold their lands under Ex.A21 dated 01.06.1983 to one Rengaraj giving specific survey numbers and boundaries. By Ex.A21 dated 01.06.1983, Rengaraj in turn sold the said lands to the Trust under Ex.A4 equivalent to A25 dated 11.01.1985. The total area sold in S.No.9 land measuring 5.02 acres.
48.The learned Senior Counsel argued that when the lands remained undivided, they could not have been sold with specific boundaries unless there had been a partition among the coparcenars. He therefore stated that the legal heirs of Velu Thevar and Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar alienated their shares of the properties in Kongathanpari Village to various persons who entered into a registered deed of partition dated 15.05.2006 registered as Document No.2767 of 2006 wherein the details regarding the devolution of title and the document numbers of the sale deeds of the respective parties had been very clearly stated. In this particular partition, the 66th to 69th parties to the partition deed, Balakrishnan, Paulraj, Arunachalam and Mookan had been allotted the properties which had been described as the 36th schedule in the partition deed namely, lands in S.No.9 to an extent of 15.35 acres. They, Balakrishnan, Paulraj, Arunachalam and Mookan 55/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) alienated the said lands in S.No.9 to M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., by sale deed dated 30.06.2006 registered as Document No.3351 of 2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,67,500/-. Out of the total area of 15.35 acres. M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., further conveyed lands to an extent of 4.77 acres in the middle of S.No.9 by a sale deed dated 28.07.2006 in favour of the 5th defendant Aysha Dowladh. Similarly, Aysha Dowladh also purchased land in S.No.9 measuring 5 acres and 2 cents which was item No.2 in the plaint and also land in S.No.11 measuring 2 acres and 55 cents on the southern side of the western portion which totally measured 5 acres and 55 cents out of total area of 19 acres and 14 cents by sale deed dated 31.03.2006 from P.Udayar and Alfred acting as power agent of P.Chelladurai and 21 others.
49.The learned Senior Counsel stated that similarly Mohammed Shafi, the 4th defendant purchased lands in S.No.11 measuring 3 acres on the northern side of the western portion of the total area of 5 acres and 55 cents out of 19 acres and 14 cents by sale deed dated 31.03.2006 executed by P.Udayar and Alfred as power agent of P.Chelladurai and 21 others.
50.The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that Shifa had obtained 56/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) absolute title over the land, under their occupation, over which, they had, after obtaining due permission and sanction from the authorities, formed a layout and sold the lands in plots to various individuals / appellants in A.S.No.103 of 2016. It had therefore been contended by the learned Senior Counsel that Shifa had obtained marketable title, which cannot be questioned by either the Trust or by the Temple. The learned Senior Counsel argued that when the lands had been undivided, the Trust had purchased the lands with specific boundaries even before the lands were partitioned and this fact, according to the learned Senior Counsel, placed a cloud over the title of the Trust over the lands. It was only in the year 2006, for the first time, all the co-owners had joined together in effecting partition over the land for which they had title and in the said partition deed, they had traced out the title of each one of them. He pointed out that thereafter, lands with specific boundaries had been sold to Shifa.
51.The learned Senior Counsel assailed the judgment of the Trial Court stating that there was absolutely no discussion on this particular aspect, as to how undivided lands can be sold with specific boundaries to the Trust. He argued that when the title deeds of Shifa and Trust were to be compared, the properties were identifiable only in the documents relied on by Shifa and therefore there was a 57/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) titled relied on by the Trust.
52.Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the appellant / purchasers in AS (MD) No.103 of 2016, in his arguments, pointed out that in the sale deeds relied on by the Trust dated 11.01.1985, 09.10.1985, 18.03.1985 and 17.02.1986 there was no clear discussion of the title of the lands belonging to the vendors. The learned counsel therefore argued that the vendors did not have absolute title, but only had joint title and pointed out that this aspect of title had not been discussed by the Trial Court. The vendors had not taken any steps to sub-divide the land before conveying the lands to the Trust. The learned counsel further argued that the decree of mandatory injunction is in-executable, since the lands had not been properly described in the schedule to the plaint. There is a remarkable change on the ground with the lands being sub-divided into plots and the purchasers have put up constructions even before the institution of the suit. He therefore stated that the suits had been laid on improper description of the lands, for which the decree was sought. The learned counsel therefore contended that the appeal should be allowed.
53.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 58/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) respondent / Trust, disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants.
The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Trust had purchased the suit properties consisting of five items by separate sale deeds dated 11.01.1985 (2 sale deeds) and 18.03.1985, 09.10.1985, 17.02.1986. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Trust had been constituted by the founder of the Trust, V.Kuttammal on 26.02.1975. By a subsequent codicil dated 07.09.1989, authority was granted by the Trustees to expand the objects of the Trust. It had been contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the suit properties absolutely vested with the Trust. The main object of the Trust was to perform all the ceremonies relating to the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival of Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swamy Thirukovil, Temple at Sankarankovil and by the codicil dated 07.09.1989, the object had been widened to also feed the needy and to carry out other charitable activities. It was thus contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the object cannot be narrowed down only to perform the Mandagapadi on the 11th day Aadi Thapasu for the Temple. Even otherwise, the object was only to perform a Mandagapadi and therefore the properties cannot be categorized as Kattalai properties. The learned Senior Counsel stated that performance of Mandagapadi was conducted even much prior to the formation of the Trust by the family members of the founder of the Trust and the Trust Deed only recognized that 59/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) particular act conducted by the family. The learned Senior Counsel was therefore emphatic in his submission that the properties had no direct nexsus to the performance of the Mandagapadi. He therefore argued that the properties cannot be considered as specific religious endowments. He therefore asserted that the Trust has every authority to deal with the properties and therefore the suit filed by the Temple claiming that the properties should be declared as specific religious endowment should be rejected and dismissed.
54.The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the flow of title to the Trust can never be denied or disputed. The title had also been established by producing necessary documents. With respect to the partition effected in the year 2006, the learned Senior Counsel stated that the properties had already stood transferred in the name of the Trust nearly 20 years before the date of partition relied on by Shifa. He contended that by a partition there cannot be any transfer of property by either of the parties to the partition deed and therefore, contended that the vendors of the lands to Shifa did not have title to transfer the lands.
55.The learned Senior Counsel stated that after the purchase of the lands 60/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) by the Trust, the lands remained vacant and thereafter, taking advantage of that particular fact, Shifa had created documents to purchase the lands and had formed a layout to the direct detrimental interest of the Trust. The learned Senior Counsel stated that it was under those circumstances that the Trust had come forward to institute a suit independent of the written statement filed in the suit filed by the temple seeking a declaration that the properties stood vested with the Trust. It was the specific stand of the Trust that they had never conveyed or divested the properties of the Trust, the Trust alone owns the plaint schedule properties. The Trust had therefore, in exercise of its ownership and title also sought a decree for mandatory injunction to demolish the houses constructed by the defendants in the plaint schedule properties. The Trust had impleaded all the purchasers of the plots of land sold by Shifa. The learned Senior Counsel stated that it was under those circumstances that the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to demolish the superstructure in the plaint schedule properties. He contended that Shifa had purchased the properties from the predecessors in title who had already lost their title over the properties having conveyed the properties to the Trust nearly 20 years prior to the purchase of the properties by Shifa. He also argued that the properties were not Kattalai properties as contended by the Temple and urged that 61/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the properties should be declared as absolute properties of the Trust.
56.Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the Temple contended that a reading of the Trust Deed would clearly show that the main and only object of the Trust was to perform the 11th day Madagapadi of Aadi Thapasu festival at Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukovil at Sankarankovil. The learned counsel contended that this was the only object for which the Trust had been created. After the death of the founder of the Trust, a Codicil was written down in the year 1989 granting permission to widen the objects. Ther permission to purchase properties was already availabe in the original trust deed also. The only purpose for which the properties should and could be purchased was to enable the income there from to be utilized to conduct the Mandagapadi festival. He therefore contended that there was a direct link between the properties and the performance of the function of the temple. He therefore contended that it has to be construed only as a specific religious endowment and therefore, the temple should be declared as having a vested right over the lands. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Trust had purchased the properties in the year 1985 and 1986 and thereafter, had abandoned the lands enabling Shifa to purchase the lands from third parties who had already lost title over the properties. The learned counsel 62/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) stated that therefore Shifa can never get any lawful title or claim over the lands.
He further contended that in collusion with the authorities permission had been obtained for forming a layout. The properties had been sub-divided into plots and sold to the purchasers. He claimed that the temple has every authority to exercise its right over the lands. It was under those circumstances that the suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the properties were specific religious endowments and for a further mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions put up in the suit schedule properties.
57.The learned counsel pointed out that in their own pleadings, the Trust had admitted that the properties were specific religious endowments. He claimed that the Trust had deliberately abandoned the lands and alleged that the Trust was in collusion with Shifa on this account. The learned counsel further stated that the Trust was irrevocable and perpetual. There was no residual left for the benefit of the trustees. The entire income from the properties was to be used only for the performance of the Mandagapadi for the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival at the temple. The learned counsel therefore insisted that the suit for declaration filed by the temple should be decreed and that mandatory injunction should granted to demolish the buildings put up in the lands, specifically dedicated to the temple. 63/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
58.Reply arguments were advanced by Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel and also by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel.
59.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel again reiterated that the suit had been filed seeking a declaratory relief without mentioning the specific extent of land, without mentioning specific boundaries and therefore reiterated that the suits filed by the Temple and by the Trust are not maintainable.
60.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel contended that the properties had already been divided before 1915 and that the parties had enjoying the properties separately. With respect to item Nos.2, 3 and 4, the learned counsel contended that the vendor of the properties to the Trust had also been examined. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Trust had purchased the land from Rengaraj with respect to the lands in S.Nos.9 and 11 and therefore, contended that Shifa could not have purchased the lands from those whose title already stood divested. He also pointed out the communication from Shifa to the Commissioner, HR & CE dated 30.05.2007, wherein they had come forward proposing settlement.
64/129https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
61.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel, however, pointed out that such communication was issued without prejudice to the stand to be taken by Shifa and therefore, stated that issuance of such communication would not dilute the title of Shifa.
62.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the material records.
63.The points which arise for consideration in these appeals are as follows:
“1.Whether when the vendors of the lands to the Trust had an undivided share in the properties, they could have conveyed properties with specific boundaries to the Trust without partition being effected among the co-owners?
2.Whether the Trust had established title over the suit schedule properties?
3.Whether the suit properties are specific religious endowment created under the Trust Deed / Ex.A1?65/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
4.Whether the partition deed dated 15.05.2006 registered as Document No.2767 of 2006 entered into without the Trust as a party could be declared as valid in the eye of law?
5.Whether M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., was a bonafide purchaser of the properties and whether their vendors had title to convey the properties?
6.Whether M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., had marketable title to form a layout and convey the plots to the purchasers? and
7.Whether the Temple and/or the Trust are entitled for mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions put up by the purchasers over the suit properties?” Issue No.3:
64.The Sankaranarayana Swami 11th day Aadi Thabasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund also called as Kuttammal Religous and Charitable Trust represented by its sole Trustee V.S.Velayutham, had filed O.S.No.117 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Court at Tirunelveli against M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director and against M.K.M.Mohamed 66/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Shafi and Aysha Dowladh and Arulmighu Gomathiammbal Sametha Sri Sankaranaryana Swami Diety through its Executive Officer and 100 other defendants seeking a judgment and a decree of declaration that the suit schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff Trust and for consequential recovery of possession from the defendants and for mandatory injunction to demolish all the superstructures put in the plaint schedule properties constructed by the defendants and for costs of the suit.
65.In the plaint, the plaintiff, termed as the Trust, had listed five items of properties in the schedule.
i).The first item was land measuring 5 acres and 2 cents in S.No.9 out of a larger area of 15 acres and 35 cents at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The four boundaries of the land had been specifically given.
ii).The second item was land measuring 1 acre and 60 cents in S.No.11 out of larger area of 19 acres 14 cents at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The four boundaries of the land had been specifically given.
iii).The third item was land measuring 5.34 (35) acres in S.No.9 out of larger area of 15 acres and 35 cents at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, 67/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Palayamkottai. The four boundaries of the land had been specifically given.
iv).The fourth item was land measuring 67 cents in S.No.11 out of larger area of 9 acres and14 cents at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The four boundaries of the land had been specifically given.
v).The fifth item was land measuring 1 acre 92 cent in S.No.9 out of larger area of 15 acres and 35 cents and land measuring 0.58 cents in S.No.11 out of larger area of 19 acres and 14 cents totally measuring 2.50 acres at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The four boundaries of the land had been specifically given.
66.It had been contended by the Trust in the plaint that the aforementioned lands had been purchased by the Trust by the registered sale deeds has detailed below:
Sale Deed Exhibit
Item No. Land Area Survey No. Dated No.
1 5.02 acres 9 11.01.1985 A4:A25
2 1.60 acres 11 09.10.1985 A6:A27
3 5.34(35) acres 9 18.03.1985 A5:A26
4 0.67 cents 11 17.02.1986 A7:A28
1.92 acres 9
5 0.58 cents 11 11.01.1985 A3:A24
68/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
67.The plaintiff contended that the Trust Deed dated 26.02.1975 marked as Ex.A1:A22, authorized the trustees to purchase land for and on behalf of the Trust. It had been further contended that the Trust is the absolute owner of the aforementioned lands and that the title has also been recognized by the Government. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants, particularly the 1st to 3rd defendants and the 5th to 104th defendants had begun to put up constructions in the year 2006. It had been contended that the Trust took issue with the said defendants over unauthorized occupation. However, before the Trust could initiate legal action, the Temple, Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukovil, Sankarankovil, through its Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer, filed O.S.No.566 of 2007 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, against the Trust and its trustees and also against M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., and its two Directors, M.K.M.Mohammed Shafi and Ayisha Dowlath and also against the Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, with respect to the very same properties seeking a decree declaring that the plaint schedule properties were specific religious endowment Trust in favour of the 1st defendant Trust and the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or constructing any house in the plaint schedule 69/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant / the Sub-
Registrar from registering any document relating to the said properties and for mandatory injunction directing the Trust and M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., to demolish the constructions put up in the suit schedule properties and to grant vacant possession of the lands to the plaintiff temple and for costs of the suit.
68.In the plaint, in O.S.No.117 of 2010 the Trust further pleaded that pending the suit, the plaintiff / Trust and the defendants, particularly M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., were advised to compromise the matter before the Commissioner, HR and CE and the defendants had admitted to the title of the Trust and had filed a petition before the Commissioner, but no order had been passed. It was the contention of the Trust that the Trust was absolute owner of the properties and had never conveyed the same to the Temple. It had been further stated that, however, constructions proceeded over the suit properties, necessitating institution of the suit.
69.The Temple in O.S.No.85 of 2011 had however contended that the suit properties were specific religious endowment in favour of the Temple. It was contended that the Trust was formed under Ex.A1:A22, the Deed of Trust dated 26.02.1975 to conduct the entire 11th day Adi Thapasu Mandagapadi festival of 70/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukovil, Sankarankovil, to conduct abishekam, alangaram, procession of holy deities, to feed the poor, to run water- pandal and for all paditharams including musical concerts, upanyasams and lectures etc. It was therefore contended that the lands are ‘Kattalai’ lands which are ‘specific religious endowments’ created by the Trust burdened with duty to perform the Kattalies to the plaintiff Temple. It had been contended that the Trust should have taken care that there were no third party interest surfacing over the lands and since the Trust had failed to do so, the Temple was constrained to institute the suit to reclaim the lands.
70.Even before examining the claim of the Trust for title over the lands and the claim of Shifa and other purchasers that they are lawful purchasers and who had marketable title over the lands, it would be essential to first examine the nature of the lands, namely, whether they are specific religious endowment as contended by the Temple or whether only a charge had been created over the lands and the Trust was at liberty to deal with the lands in any manner they deem fit and necessary towards the object of the Trust.
71.To determine this as an issue, the Trust Deed Ex.A1:A22 dated 71/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) 26.02.1975 will have to be examined in detail. It must be kept in mind that the suit schedule properties had been purchased by the Trust only owing to the authority and permission to so purchase the lands by the Trust Deed. The Codicil to the Trust Deed marked as Ex.A2:A23 dated 07.09.1989 came into existence much after the lands had been purchased.
72.In Ex.A1:A22 dated 26.02.1975, Trust Deed, it had been covenanted that the author of the Trust, Srimathi V. Kuttalammal, was long desirous of making suitable provisions for the celebration and maintenance of the entire conduct of the 11th Day Adi Thapasu Mandagapadi at Sri Sankaralinga Swami Sametha Gomathi Ammal Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam, Sankarakovil, including abishekam, alankaram, procession of deities, feeding the poor, running watershed and other paditharams including arrangements for musical concerts, upanyasams and lectures etc. By the declaration in the Trust, the author had declared that a sum of Rs.20,000/- already deposited in the name of the Trust with M/s. The Gomathy Mills (Spg), Viravanallur, would constitute the Trust property. She also appointed her son, A.V.Rm.V.Sankaranarayanan as the first trustee “to have and hold the said Trust property upon trust for carrying out the objects and purposes of the Trust”. In the deed, the name of the Trust was given as 72/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Sankaranarayanaswami 11th Day Adi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund. The successor trustee was also nominated. The objects of the Trust were stated and it was restricted to celebrate and to conduct the entire 11th day festival of the temple. Thereafter, the trustee was granted power to apply the Trust fund for acquisition of any kind of property and to open bank account and to invest the funds of the property in movable or immovable properties and to also acquire and hold shares for the benefit of the Trust in any public or private company and to sell or mortgage or lease or create any charge on the whole or part of the property for attaining the objects of the Trust, to administer the whole or part of the Trust and to have necessary control and management of the affairs of the Trust. The trustee was also given the authority to raise loans for the benefit of the Trust and to settle or compromise disputes and suits for proceedings filed by or against the Trust. It was also provided as follows:
“The Trustee shall have the authority and power to make, alter and rescind the rules and regulations for the management and administration of the Trust.”
73.It was further provided that the trustee shall collect the income of the 73/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Trust and “in the first instance provide for all the incidental expenses essential and necessary to be incurred for the purpose of carrying on the objects of the Trust” and thereafter, meet other expenses for the management and administration of the Trust.
74.The Trust was stated to remain in force for all time. It was also provided that the Trust is irrevocable and that the author of the Trust has no right to revoke the Trust.
75.It is the contention of the Trust that by the Codicil dated 07.09.1989 and marked as Ex.A2, in accordance with the wish of the author of the Trust, V.Kuttalammal, at the time of her death to change the name of the Trust and to enlarge the scope of the objects and purposes of the Trust, amendments had been brought confirming to such wish of the author of the Trust. The name of the Trust had been changed to Kuttalammal Religious and Charitable Trust. The objects of the Trust had been expanded to also include other charitable objects such as helping the needy for education, rendering and giving medical help, founding, establishing and maintaining padasalas, schools, dispensaries and such other institutions and the like to cater and serve the public and all communities at large. 74/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
76.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Trust pointed out this amendment brought in to the objects of the Trust and argued that the object of the Trust was no longer confined to the conduct the 11 th day Aadi Thapasu functions and ceremonies of Sankaralingaswami Gomathi Amman Temple but to also include the aforementioned activities which were both religious and charitable in nature. The learned Senior Counsel argued that, therefore, the properties which stood vested with the Trust can never be termed to be specific religious endowment, for a particular function or festival. The enlarged objects of the Trust should also be fulfilled by the trustees and if this wish of the author of the Trust which came to be reflected in the Codicil / Ex.A2 are to be fulfilled, then the suit properties can never be termed as specific religious endowment, as otherwise, the enlarged objects of the Trust, namely, helping the needy for education, giving medical help, establishing and maintaining padasalas, schools, dispensaries and such other institutions can never be achieved. The learned Senior Counsel therefore argued that in order to ensure that the last wish of the author of the Trust is fulfilled, there must be more leverage given to the trustees while dealing with the income generated from the properties of the Trust and therefore there could only be a charge over the 75/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) properties, which would indicate, that the income earned from the properties could be used for the discharge of the object of the Trust. The learned Senior Counsel stated that it may therefore not be necessary to hold that the properties were bound to the Temple to discharge of the objects of the Trust. The authority to deal with the properties in any manner as is deemed fit is always vested with the Trust and there can never be any encroachment of such authority of the trustees.
77.Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the Temple, however, disputed the said contentions. According to the learned counsel, a plain reading of the objects of the Trust and the terms surrounding the objects of the Trust would clearly show that to perform the objects, it was the wish of the author of the Trust that the properties should be bound over as specific endowments in favour of the Temple. The learned counsel argued that the Codicil can never expand the objects as initially framed by the author of the Trust.
78.A careful perusal of the Codicil dated 07.09.1989, to the Trust Deed dated 26.02.1975, would show that by the Codicil, the primary object of the Trust had been retained and thereafter, further objects had been enumerated. It would 76/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) only be appropriate that the objects as presented in the Codicil are extracted in entirety, “to celebrate and conduct the entire 11th Day Festival of Sankaralingaswamy Gomathi Amman Sankarankoil, abishekam, alankaram, procession of deiteis, feeding of the poor, running water shed, thanner pandal and any/or all paditharams including arrangements and expenditure for musical concerts, upanyasams, lectures etc. and such other charitable objects such as helping the needy for education, rendering and giving medical help, founding, establishing and maintaining padasalas, schools, dispensaries and such other institutions and the like to cater and serve the public and all communities at large.”
79.A reading would show that the original object had been retained. Thereafter, further objects had been enumerated. Very significantly, the two sets of objects which could be termed as original objects and subsequently introduced objects are joined with the conjunction “and”. This would only indicate that the Trust was still obliged to perform the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival of the temple and in extension thereof, to also indulge in performing the expanded objects. The codicil does not reflect the conjunction “or” which if used would have given the liberty to the trustees to have a choice namely, to either perform 77/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the objects as originally stated or to perform the objects newly introduced in the Codicil. Since the conjunction “and” has been used, the properties which stood vested with the Trust have to be necessarily categorized as having been specific endowed to the Temple to perform the original objects of the Trust. The trustees are also given the leverage to perform the expanded objects, as introduced by the amendment. Very consciously, a choice had not been given whether to perform or not to perform the original objects of the Trust. That object remains static and has to be performed. That was the object for which the Trust was formed by the author.
80.It had been alternatively argued that in the Trust Deed / Ex.A1, it had only been mentioned that the name of the Trust was Sankaranarayana Swami 11 th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund and that the usage of the word “Mandagapadi” can never expand to include the properties of the Trust as having been specifically endowed to fulfill the objects of the Trust.
81.In Modern Tamil Dictionary, published in 1935 by C.Kumarasamy Naidu Sons and prepared by the Tamil Pandit C.Krishnasamipillai, the word 78/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) ‘kz;lgg;go’ had been given the following meaning:
“kz;lgg;go ? jpUtpHhtpy; Rthkp j';Fkplk;. jpUehl;
rpwg;g[/”
82.In another Tamil dictionary, prepared by A.K.Moorthy, the word ‘kz;lgg;go’ had been given the following meaning:
“kz;lgg;go ? cw;rt K:h;j;jpia kz;lgj;jpy; vGe;jUsr;
bra;jy;. the ceremony of receiving the deity in the hall.”
83.The word ‘Mandagapadi’ has also been stated to refer to a temporary pavilion or decorated halt / station set up along the deities procession route, especially during South Indian Temple festivals, where people offer prayers and hospitality, neivedhyam to the deity visiting their area, essentially a devotional welcome spot, meaning welcoming pavilion, offering station or temporary shrine.
84.We hold that the meaning of the word would therefore indicate a place where the deity halts either during a procession or during any other specific occasion in the course and during the course of a function or a festival when the 79/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) people give their offerings and if the halt is for an entire day then, during the day, there will also be allied religious and charitable acts performed including abishekam, alankaram for the deity, procession of deities, feeding the poor, distributing water, arranging musical concerts or upanyashams etc., to be attended by the devotees. This halt could also be in a precinct within the temple where the deity is kept through the day. We further hold that the deity is kept on a specific day, on a specific month and if this specific day of that specific month is continued year after year and a particular devotee comes forward to bear the total expenses incurred for that particular day and to satisfy that particular object, creates a Trust and declares that the capital of the Trust shall be used for the purpose of all the functions and allied activities on that particular day, then, that particular capital, either in cash or in property would be bound to the Temple for the specific performance for the specific object of performing those religious and charitable acts or activities. We finally hold that the said property or capital as the case may be, becomes bound to the temple.
85.In P.Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition 2005, the word ‘Kattalai’ had been given the following meaning, “Kattalai: In ordinary parlance, the term ‘Kattalai’ as applied 80/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) to temple means endowments and signifies a special endowment for certain specific service or religious charity in the temple. ‘Ardajama Kallalai’ or endowment for midnight service is an instance of the former and ‘Annandan Kattalai’ or endowment for distributing food to the poor is an example of the latter.
86.In 2006 SCC 151, Palanvelayutham Pillai vs. Ramchandaran and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the term ‘Kattalai’ relied on the commentaries of B.K.Mukargi in the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust, 5th Edition by K.C.Sen and to the observations of a retired former Judge of this Court (T.Muttuswami Aiyer, J.) in Vythilinga V. Somasundara, 4 ILR (1894) 17 Mad 1999 and held as follows in paragraph No. 14:
“14.…….the term ‘kattalai’, as applied to Temple endowments in Southern India, signifies a special endowment for certain specific religious services in the temple, in this sense the word ‘kattalai’ is used in contradistinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple itself. In the case of some important temples the sources of their income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance and each endowment if placed under a special trustee and specific items of 81/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) expenditure are assigned to it as legitimate charges to be paid therefrom. Each of such endowments is called as ‘kattalai’.
87.It is thus seen that properties could be endowed for the purpose of poojas in the temple or certain festivals in the temple or archanas to the deity in the name of the donors.
88.In the case of temples, the source of their income are classified to distinct endowments and each endowment is called as Kattalai.
89.In the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, specific endowment had been defined as follows:
“Section 6(19): “specific endowment” means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (17); Explanation. — (1) Two or more endowments of the nature specified in this clause, the administration of which is vested in a common trustee, or which are managed under a common scheme settled or deemed to have 82/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) been settled under this Act, shall be construed as a single specific endowment for the purposes of this Act ;
Explanation.—(2) Where a specific endowment attached to a math or temple is situated partly within the State and partly outside the State, control shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Act over the part of the specific endowment situated within the State.”
90.Explanation:1 to clause 17 of the Act, is as follows:
“Explanation.—(1) Any inam granted to an archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service holder or employee but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment.”
91.Thus, the legislature had brought in legality of a specific endowment of any property or money set apart for the purpose of any specific service or charity in a mutt or temple.
92.In AIR 1966 SC 653, M.R.Goda Rao Sahib Vs. State of Madras, while examining the concept of specific endowment in the Madras Hindu Religious and 83/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined a Deed of Settlement dated 10.01.1914, wherein it had been provided that the properties set out in Schedule-A would be responsible for meeting the expenses of the charities specified in Schedule-B. In Schedule-B, a list of 17 different charities had been stated and the amounts to be spent on each had also been given. It was examined whether such settlement created a specific endowment. When an argument was presented that there was merely a charge on the properties and there was no divesting of the title of the properties or vesting of such title in any body of trustees or in the temple itself, it was held rejecting such argument as follows:
“14. I am unable to accept this argument as correct. In Hindu law a dedication of property may be either absolute or partial. — Iswari Bhubaneshwari v. Brojo Nath Dey [64 IA 203] . In the former case, the property is given out and out to an idol or to a religious or charitable institution and the donor divests himself of all beneficial interest in the property comprised in the endowment. Where the dedication is partial, a charge is created on the property or there is a trust to receive and apply a portion of the income for the religious or charitable purpose. In such a case, the property descends and is alienable and partible in the ordinary way, the only difference being that it passes with the charge upon it.84/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) (Mayne's Hindu Law, Eleventh Edn., p. 923). In my opinion, the expression “religious endowment” as defined in Section 6(14) and “specific endowment” as defined in Section 6(16) of the Act must be construed so as to include both absolute and partial dedication of property. This view is supported by reference to Section 32(1) of the Act which states:
“32. (1) Where a specific endowment attached to a math or temple consists merely of a charge on property and there is failure in the due performance of the service or charity, the trustee of the math or temple concerned may require the person in possession of the property on which the endowment is a charge, to pay the expenses incurred or likely to be incurred in causing the service or charity to be performed otherwise. In default of such person making payment as required, the Deputy Commissioner may, on the application of the trustee and after giving the person in possession a reasonable opportunity of stating his objections in regard thereto, by order, determine the amount payable to the trustee.” This section, therefore, contemplates that “specific endowment” attached to a math or temple may consist merely of a charge on property. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument on behalf of the appellant that in order to constitute a “specific endowment” within the meaning of the Act there must be a transfer of title or divestment of title to the property. In my opinion, Mr Sastri is, therefore, unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case.” 85/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
93.In (2019) 8 SCC 689, M.J. Thulasiraman and another V. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration and Another, it had been held as follows:
“17. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the Act, the definition of “specific endowment” includes any money that has been endowed for the performance of a religious charity. Following our holding that the rock inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient to show that money has been endowed for the performance of the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act.
18. While the word “endow”, and the connected word “endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act, from their usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is clear that they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for some purpose. In the context of the Act, the purpose is with respect to religion or charity. [See P. Ramanatha Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., p. 634, 635;
Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Charity Commr. [Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Charity Commr., 1987 Supp SCC 714] , para 8]. In the present case, the rock inscription clearly provides for the utilisation of money from the “Bakers Choultry” for the purposes of performing the charitable activity of feeding Brahmins during the specified religious festivals. As such, it is clear that the rock inscription creates a “specific 86/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) endowment” as specified under Section 6(19) of the Act, which falls within the ambit of the Act.”
94.In (2020) 17 SCC 96, Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Rep. by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner V. P.K.Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee and others, again while examining a Settlement Deed, creating an endowment or dedication for charitable purposes, it had been held as follows:
“14. The term “endow” means to give or bequeath a thing, property or otherwise. Where the text of the deed purports to divest the property from the settlor and reserves it for a charitable purpose, the property has been endowed. In certain cases, an endowment may not be absolute towards the charitable purpose and may reserve some portion of the property or resultant income from the property for the legal heirs of the settlor. The question of whether the settlor intended the religious purpose to be the primary beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the legal heirs of the settlor, or whether the heirs were the primary beneficiaries subject to a charge towards the continuation of the charitable purpose must be determined by reading the settlement deed as a whole.”
95.It had been further held as follows:
87/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) “24.The activities of the first respondent trust have a connection with Chithiraj Ganjendra Moksham and Padi Eightenn festivals and the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” of Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum.
The festivals are Hindu religious festivals and the use of the expression “devotees” indicates that there exists a direct nexus and association between the public charity described in the deed of settlement and the Hindu religious festivals. Reference to “devotees” in the deed of settlement also indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. The charity which is described in the deed o settlement is a public charity associated with a Hindu religious festival. The charity is a “religious charity” under Section 6(16). Applying the reasoning set out in M.J.Thulasiraman v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn., (2019) 8 SCC 689, to the facts of the present case, where money (or property) is endowed fro the performance of a religious charity, a “specific endowment” as defined in Section 6(19) is created. Therefore, the first respondent trust is a “specific endowment” under the 1959 Act.”
96.On the basis of the dictum laid above, if the Trust Deed / Ex.A1 is revisited and re-examined, it is evident that the author of the Trust had taken a conscious decision to provide for the celebration and maintenance of the entire conduct of the 11th Day Festival of Sankaralingaswamy Gomathi Amman 88/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Sankarankoil including providing for abishekam, alankaram, procession of deiteis, feeding of the poor, running water shed, thanner pandal and any/or all paditharams including arrangements and expenditure for musical concerts, upanyasams, lectures etc. It is with specific purpose to provide suitable provision for the expenses towards the conduct of the above that a declaration had been made for a sum of Rs.20,000/- to constitute as Trust property “for carrying out the objects and purposes of the Trust”. We hold that this constitutes a specific religious endowment.
97.We further hold that, subsequently when the trustees had purchased the suit schedule properties in the name of the Trust, the properties automatically became entangled with the Trust / its objects and purpose of the objects. There need not be divestment of title. The properties became vested for the purpose of performing the specific religious objects of the Trust and we hold that therefore, they can only be termed as specific religious endowment in favour of the Temple for the purpose of conducting the 11th day Aadi Thapasu festival.
98.In fact, though the Trust, during trial and during arguments continued to 89/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) make vain efforts to ensure that the properties are not declared as specific religious endowment, had in their reply statement to the written statement filed by the defendants in O.S.No.117 of 2010, admitted that the main object of the Trust was to celebrate and conduct the 11th day festival of the Temple and that the Mandagapadi is a specific endowment attached to the Temple and therefore, when an effort was made to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Shifa had sought permission from the Commissioner, HR and CE as required under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Thus, the Trust and Shifa were conscious of the fact that the properties were specific religious endowment created by the author of the Trust.
99.Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is as follows:
“34. Alienation of immovable trust property.—(1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution.” 90/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
100.It is thus seen that the provision is crystal clear that any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property endowed for the purpose of religious institutions shall be null and void unless sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. The Trust was aware of this particular provision of law and while making an effort to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with Shifa had sought sanction from the Commissioner and needless to point out such application was rejected and sanction was not granted.
101.The point No.3 framed for consideration is therefore answered that the suit properties are specific religious endowment created under the Trust Deed / Ex.A1 and that the Codicil Ex.A2 had not diluted the objects of the Trust, but had only expanded the only objects of the Trust, while retaining the original object of the Trust and had not given a choice between the performance of the original object and the newly introduced object. The responsibility and duty to perform the original object remained even in the Codicil Ex.A2. The suit schedule properties are therefore declared to be specific religious endowment created under the Trust Deed Ex.A1 in favour of the Temple for the purpose of conducting the 91/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) 11th day Aadi Thapasu Festival.
Point Nos.1 and 2:
102.The Appeals and the Cross Objection have been filed questioning the common judgment and decree in O.S.No.117 of 2010 and O.S.No.85 of 2011.
103.O.S.No.85 of 2011 had been initially filed as O.S.No.566 of 2007 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, by the Temple / Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Thirukoil, Sankarankovil, through its Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer.
104.O.S.No.117 of 2010 had been filed by the Trust / Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Tirukovil 11th day Adi Thapasu, Mandagapadi Uthsavam Fund, alternatively called as Kuttalammal Religious and Charitable Trust, represented by its trustee V.S.Velayutham. In O.S.No.85 of 2011, the plaintiff / Temple had sought a declaration that a suit schedule properties are specific religious endowment created by the 1st defendant Trust / Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Tirukovil 11th day Adi Thapasu, Mandagapadi Uthsavam Fund. In O.S.No.117 of 2010, the Trust had sought a declaration that 92/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the suit schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff Trust.
105.In effect, in both the suits, the plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule properties should be declared to belong to the Trust. The temple had sought an additional declaration that though it belonged to the Trust, the suit schedule properties should be declared as specific religious endowment created by the Trust. To examine whether the plaintiffs, particularly, the Trust had proved title over the suit schedule properties, it would be imperative to examine the nature of the suit schedule properties as described in the two plaints. The properties are the same. In both the plaints, there are five items of properties, which had been described. They are all described as vacant land. Item No.1 was land measuring 5 acres and 2 cents out of a larger extent of 15.35 acres in S.No.9 of Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The specific boundaries of the land had been given in the plaint. Item No.2 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 is land measuring 5 acres and 2 cents out of a larger area of 15.35 acres in S.No.9 at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The specific boundaries of the land had been given. Item No.2 in O.S.No.117 of 22010 is land measuring 1.60 acres out of a larger area of 19.14 acres in S.No.11 at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. This has been described as item No.3 in 93/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) O.S.No.85 of 2011. Item No.4 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 is land measuring 0.67 cents out of larger area of 19.14 acres in S.No.11 at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai. The same land has described as item No.4 in O.S.No11 of 2010. Item No.5 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 was land measuring 1.92 acres out of a larger area of 15.35 acres in S.No.9 and land measuring 0.58 cents out of a larger area of 19.14 acres in S.No.11 both totaling 2.50 acres at Kongathanparai Village, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai.
106.It is case of the Trust, that three brothers, Venkatachalam Pillai, Chidambaram Pillai and Namachivayam Pillai together owned 243 acres of land comprised in 22 separate survey numbers coming within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. The two suits were concerned with the lands measuring 15.35 acres in S.No.9 and 19.14 acres in S.No.11 at Kongathanparai Village.
107.It is the case of all the parties to the suit that out of the larger extent of 243 acres, Venkatachalam Pillai was entitled to an undivided 1/2 share which would indicate that he was entitled to a total area of 121.5 acres. Chidambaram Pillai and Namachivayam Pillai were each entitled to an undivided 1/4th share 94/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) which would indicate that they were both entitled to 60.75 acres each. With specific reference to S.Nos.9 and 11, it is contended that Venkatachalam Pillai was entitled to 7.67 and ½ acres of land in S.No.9 and 9.57 acres of land in S.No.
11. Chidambaram Pillai and Namachivayam Pillai were each entitled to 3.84 acres of land in S.No.9 and 4.78 ½ acres of land in S.No.11. The three brothers held the land without effecting any partition by metes and bounds. But however, they were aware of their respective entitlements.
108.It is contended that Venkatachalam Pillai had a son Sethu Subramaniam Pillai. He sold his 1/2 share, the other half belonging to his father Venkatachalam Pillai to five separate sets of purchasers mentioned below conveying undivided 1/5th share out of his 1/2 share to each, by Exs.A11 to A15, all dated 05.01.1915 in both S.Nos.9 and 11:
SL. Exhibit Dated Conveyed to
No.
1. A11 05.01.1915 1.Yesuvadiyan Nadar
2.Vedhakannu Nadar
3.Yanok Nadar
4.Essakimuthu Nadar
2. A12 05.01.1915 1.Rama Nadar
2.Narayana Nadar
3.Perumal Nadar
4.Seeradi Nadar
95/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
3. A13 05.01.1915 1.Vedhamuthu Nadar
2.Paramanantha Nadar
3.Sathyanantha Nadar
4.Kulanthaivel nadar
4. A14 05.01.1915 1.Samuel Nadar
2.Samuel Nadar
3.Vaikunta Nadar
4.Sivanu Nadar
5. A15 05.01.1915 1.Shanmuga Nadar
2.Samikannu Nadar
3.Packiya Nadar
4.Ponnaiah Nadar
109.In each one of the aforementioned sale deeds, the vendors had conveyed the undivided share of land. The boundaries had not been given in the schedule. The area of the lands and the survey numbers had however been given.
110.Chidambaram Pillai had a son also named Sethu Subramanian Pillai who had two sons Rajagopala Krishna Pillai and Arumugam Pillai. Rajagopala Krishna Pillai and his wife Kalyani Ammal conveyed their undivided 1/8th share by sale deed dated 16.08.1943 marked as Ex.A16 in favour of Veluthevar. The first son of Arumugam Pillai, Sethu Subramaniam and his wife Kandammmal and his two minor sons conveyed their undivided 1/8th share to Veluthevar by sale 96/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) deed dated 07.02.1944 marked as Ex.A17. In Ex.A16, in the schedule to the document, survey numbers and the area of the land had been given and thereafter, the boundaries of the lands had also been given. The lands had been described extensively in a tabulation giving the survey numbers of the area of the lands.
111.In the recitals it had been stated that the lands conveyed had fallen to the share of Rajagopala Krishna Pillai, the first vendor. In Ex.A17, in the schedule of the lands, the survey numbers and the extent of the land had been given. But the boundaries had not been given. Veluthevar, however, purchased the lands conveyed under both Exs.A16 and A17.
112.Namachivayam Pillai had a son Venkatachalam Pillai who in turn had three children Namachivayam, Koothanainar and Kasiviswanath. There was a partition deed between Namachivayam, Koothanainar and Kasiviswanath by Ex.B24 dated 13.09.1940. Only a free hand written document had been filed as Ex.B24. But however, once a partition deed had been registered, it has to be held that the each party to the documents stood divided from the others and specific lands had been allotted to each. A partition deed creates severance of joint holding. That severance could be effected only when the lands allotted to each one of the parties to a partition deed are demarcated with boundaries and extent. 97/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
113.Thereafter, Namachivayam sold 1/8th share allotted to him in S.Nos.9 and 11 by Ex.A18 dated 10.04.1944 to Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar. Kasiviswanath sold the 1/8th share alloted to him in S.Nos.9 and 11 by a sale deed dated 10.04.1944 marked as Ex.A19 to Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar. Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar was entitled to an undivided 2/3 share of the lands conveyed under both the sale deeds and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar was entitled to the remaining 1/3 share of the lands conveyed in both the sale deeds.
114.In Ex.A18, the vendors Namachivayam Pillai and his minor son Venkatachalam Pillai had, in the recitals state that the properties had been allotted to them under a partition deed dated 13.09.1940 (Ex.B24) and also under a decree in O.S.No.230 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambasumthram. In the schedule, they had given the specific boundaries of the lands conveyed. Similarly, in Ex.A19, T.V.Kasiviswanatha Pillai referred to the partition deed executed between him and his brother Namachivayam Pillai on 13.09.1940 (Ex.B24) and stated that the lands he conveyed fell to his share under the partition and owing to a compromise decree in O.S.No.230 of 1942 on the file of the 98/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) District Munsif Court, Ambasumthram. In the schedule he had also given specific boundaries for the lands conveyed. Therefore, Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar, the purchasers of the lands under Exs.A18 and A19 had purchased lands with specific boundaries, with specific areas and in specific survey numbers. Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar was entitled to an undivided 2/3 share and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar was entitled to an undivided 1/3 share.
115.Thereafter, by Ex.A20:B117 dated 24.01.1952, a partition deed was entered into between Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar. Again, the total area of lands which they had purchased had the boundaries stipulated under Exs.A19 and A20 and after their partition, they specifically stated the boundaries between their two holdings. In the partition deed, after tracing out the title stating how they had become entitled to the lands, they further stated that if there were other lands left out in the partition deed, the same would also be subjected to partition. They had specifically given the survey numbers and the lands allotted to each one of them and again after listing out the lands had given the specific boundaries for the lands. The partition deed, had been written out in detail stating the allotment of 99/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the lands to each one of them.
116.There were no further transactions over the lands. Till that time, the lands stood vested with the purchasers under Exs.A11 to A15 (branch of Venkatachalam Pillai) to Veluthevar (branch of Chidambaram Pillai) and to Konathu Mohammed Ali Tharaganar and Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar (branch of Namachivayam Pillai).
117.The Trust then came to be formed on 26.02.1975 under Ex.A1:A22. The corpus of the Trust was a sum of Rs.20,000/- brought in by the author of the Trust, V.Kuttalammal. The trustee was given the liberty to apply the trust fund for acquisition of any kind of property including immovable property.
118.The next transaction was the convey of lands, specifically in S.No.9 to an extent of 5.16 acres and in S.No.11 to an extent of 5.62 acres by sale deed dated 01.06.1983 by Ex.A21:A29 by Konathu Mohammed Kasim Tharaganar, Konathu Mohammed Shah, Konathu Mohammed Abubekar, Konathu Mohammed Ali, Kunda Kathija Beevi, Maimoon Beevi, Ahamed Taj Beevi and Salima to 100/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) Rangaraj.
119.In that document, the vendors covenanted that they had obtained the lands through partition and in that document, very specifically stated the boundaries holding out that the lands were to the North of the lands of Sivasubbu Thevar family, to the West of road going to Kongathanparai, to the South of the boundary of Munneerpallam Village and to the East of the their lands belonging to them. Thus, lands with specific boundaries had been conveyed to Rengaraj.
120.Out of the lands purchased by Rengaraj, 5.02 acres of land in S.No.9 was conveyed by Rengaraj to the Trust by sale deed dated 11.01.1985 marked as Document No.A4:A25. This is item No.1 of the suit schedule property. In the said document, the vendor had conveyed the lands to the purchaser AV.R.M.V.Sankaranarayana Mudaliar, who had been described as trustee of Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami 11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Utsavam Fund. Thus, it is the Trust which had purchased the lands under the Trust Deed which provided for application of the Trust fund for acquisition of lands. The lands therefore got bound to the Trust, to perform the objects of the Trust and therefore, was a specific religious endowment. Again in the said document, 101/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) specific boundaries had been given for the lands conveyed.
121.With respect to the land which had been purchased by Veluthevar, his legal representatives conveyed 1.92 acres in S.No.9 and 0.58 cents in S.No.11 by sale deed dated 11.01.1985 marked as Ex.A3:A24 to the Trust. In that particular document, again, the purchaser, AV.R.M.V.Sankaranarayana Mudaliar had been described as a trustee of the Trust aforementioned. He did not purchase the same in his individual capacity. He was a representative of the Trust. It was the Trust which purchased the property applying its fund for the purchase of the property. Once again in the schedule, with respect to each one of the lands in S.Nos.9 and 11, specific boundaries had been given.
122.With respect to the lands which fell to the share of Venkatachalam Pillai and which had been conveyed under Exs.A11 to A15, in S.No.9, 5.35 acres was conveyed by sale deed dated 18.03.1985 under Ex.A5:A26 by the legal representatives of Maasilamani Nadar and Thasa Nadar to the Trust. They had inherited the property by succession. Similarly, Packiyanatha Nadar had sold 1.60 acres of land in S.No.11 by sale deed dated 09.10.1985 marked as Ex.A6:A27 to the Trust. The legal representatives of Samuel Nadar had sold 0.67 cents of land 102/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) in S.No.11 by sale deed dated 17.02.1986 marked as Ex.A7:A28 to the Trust.
123.In Ex.A5:A26 by which the 3rd item of the suit schedule property had been conveyed, the purchaser was again described as the trustee of the aforementioned Trust. Again, the four boundaries had been very specifically given in the document. Similarly, even in Ex.A6:A27 and in Ex.A7:A28 whereby, the 2nd and 4th items of properties had been conveyed, the purchaser was the trustee of the Trust and again the four boundaries had been given.
124.The aforementioned discussion of the flow of title very clearly shows that the lands belonging to the three branches had devolved by succession and thereafter by conveyance to the Trust. There had been partition among the co- owners and also partition among the purchasers. Whenever, any conveyance or partition had been effected, the lands had been specifically described by giving the boundaries. We therefore reject the contention that the lands had never been partitioned. Though initially, Venkatachalam Pillai held an undivided 1/2 share and Chidambaram Pillai and Namachivayam Pillai held an undivided 1/4 share each, by subsequent devolution of the land to their legal representatives, the boundaries were identified and fragments of the land were conveyed to the third 103/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) parties and the remaining lands were partitioned among the co-owners within the three branches. The lands thus became identifiable with specific area, with specific survey number and specific boundaries.
125.In the documents, the nature of devolution to the vendors was very clearly given in the recitals. The purchasers, therefore, had purchased the lands which were clearly described by giving specific boundaries, specific survey numbers and specific areas. Whenever undivided share of lands had been purchased, subsequently, the purchasers had entered into partition deeds, thereby delineating the lands into specific areas. The five items of properties, when they were finally conveyed to the Trust, were identifiable lands, with specific survey numbers, with specific areas and with specific boundaries.
126.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1981 All India Land Laws Reporter 356, Bhartu V. Ram Sarup wherein, the specific reference to the Full Bench was as follows:
“Whether the sale of a specific portion of land described by particular Khasra numbers by a co-owner out of the joint Khewat 104/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) would be a sale of share out of the joint land and pre-emptible under Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?”
127.In effect, the question which was put before the Full Bench was whether sale of a specific portion of land described with specific Khasra (Field- book or index compiled at time of village survey – N. W. P and Punjab) numbers by a co-owner out of joint Khewat (Record of proprietors in a village, showing the amount of land held by each, and the amount of Government demand payable thereon.-Punjab. Record of shares, interests, and liabilities of landowners in a village.- N.W.P.) would be a sale of share out of the joint land and pre-emptible namely, whether there was a right of pre-emption, it was held that it was not open to anybody to disturb the arrangement without the consent of the others except by filing a suit for partition.
128.It was therefore contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in the absence of the partition among the co-owners, undivided share of land cannot be subsequently conveyed with specific boundaries. However, as discussed supra, a careful perusal of each one of the documents, by which the Trust had purchased the lands, would make it evident that the lands had been described by giving the 105/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) area, survey number and the extent in the schedule and thereafter, also giving the boundaries of the lands.
129.We therefore, hold that the Trust had purchased lands which were identifiable. We therefore answer point No.1 that the lands conveyed were lands with specific boundaries and with respect to point No.2 that the Trust had title over the suit schedule properties.
Point Nos:4, 5 and 6:
130.The suit properties which stood crystallized in the name of the Trust were, however, further dealt with by the legal representatives of the vendors by either conveying portions of them to third parties or entering into documents transferring / confirming title inter se among themselves. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the legal representatives of Konathu Mohammed Shah had sold among other lands 1.05 acres in S.No.11 by document dated 22.10.1984 marked as Ex.B45 in favour of A.N.Arunachalam and A.N.Thirunavukarasu. Similarly, Konathu Mohammed Kasim conveyed among other lands, 1.05 acres in S.No.11 by sale deed dated 22.10.1984 marked as Ex.B46 in favour of A.N.Arunachalam and A.N.Thirunavukarasu. A.N.Thirunavukarasu sold among 106/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) other lands, including the lands in S.No.9 by four separate sale deeds all dated 10.03.2003 marked as Exs.B25, B27, B29 and B31 in favour of 4 different purchasers. P.Murugan, Kandasamy, G.Muthaiah and L.Subramaniam conveyed the lands purchased by them by four separate sale deeds all dated 01.04.2005 and marked as Exs.B26, B28, B30 and B32 in favour of Mookan, K.Arunachalam, Balakrishnan and A.Paul Raj. Thereafter, all those who had purchased the lands had entered into a partition deed on 15.05.2006 marked as Ex.B49. This partition deed was entered into by 70 individual persons. The schedule contained 37 separate schedules. The land in S.No.11 was also included in this partition deed. However, the Trust was not a party to the partition deed.
131.It had been urged by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the Trust that the said partition deed would not bind the Trust as overlooking the right, title and interest of the Trust, the partition deed had been entered into over the lands which had already been conveyed to the Trust.
132.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., stated that the partition deed had been lawfully entered into since the lands had never been subjected to partition earlier. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there was no specific partition deed entered into by the vendors of the 107/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) lands to the Trust. He contended that unless there had been a partition deed dividing the lands by metes and bounds, merely giving the boundaries in the schedule could not be considered as lands having been divided into metes and bounds. It was on those grounds that the learned Senior Counsel challenged the sale deeds in favour of the Trust. He asserted that the lands had been formally and for the first time divided only under Ex.B49 dated 15.05.2006 and further argued that the claim of the Trust to have purchased the lands, with specific boundaries, when partition had not happened by metes and bounds should be rejected by the Court. The learned Senior Counsel argued that therefore the sale deeds in favour of the Trust should be considered as non-est and null and void and not binding on the parties to the partition deed.
133.A perusal of Ex.B49 would show that after listing out the names and description of the parties to the partition deed, the documents under which they obtained title had been stated. The Trust had not even been mentioned in the partition deed. The Trust had purchased the properties even earlier to the partition deed and as a matter of fact, even earlier to some of the documents mentioned in the partition deed. The sale deeds in favour of the Trust were still in force. We hold that therefore the sale deeds in favour of the Trust created a cloud over the 108/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) rights of the parties to the partition deed who entered into a partition overlooking the Trust, particularly with respect to the lands in S.Nos.9 and 11 of Kongathanparai Village. After entering into a partition deed, the properties which had been allotted to each one or to a group of individuals had been stated. This could only be stated to be a self-declaration and not a document which gives rise to title. The parties to the partition deed proceeded on the basis that they had an existing title over the properties overlooking the documents in favour of the Trust. The sale deeds in favour of the Trust cannot be ignored.
134.It could be a fact that the trustees had abdicated their responsibilities either deliberately or negligently in keeping a watch over the lands and the developments taking place there. M/s.Shifa Housing (P) Ltd., had been constituted and proceeded to sub-divide the lands into plots into nearly more than 100 plots and were also able to find purchasers for the plots. The documents conveying properties to the Trust were shielded away from public gaze. The Trust also turned a blind eye to the transactions undertaken by Shifa.
135.We hold that thus, there has been a deliberate collusion among the parties. If the properties were not deemed to be specific religious endowment then, they could be dealt with by the Trust or the Trust could permit the properties 109/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) to be dealt with at their pleasure. But the properties have been held to be specific religious endowment properties attached to the Temple. Therefore, the partition deed can never give rise to any title to any of the parties to the document. The shadow of the Trust looms large over the individual claims of the purchasers and the parties to the partition deed.
136.It is also seen that to consolidate title a release deed had also been executed by the legal representatives of Veluthevar and more specifically in S.No. 11, 5.55 acres were released by document dated 15.05.2006 marked as Ex.B118. Thus, on the same day, 15.05.2006, a partition deed had been entered into and a release deed had also been entered into.
137.We hold that the partition deed dated 15.05.2006 in Ex.B49 can never create title to the parties to the document. It only signifies division of land among the parties. The title was in the name of the Trust and without the Trust being a party, the partition deed suffers and it could only be declared as an exercise in futility and not valid in the eye of law. Point No.4 is answered as above.
138.Be that as it may, Balakrishnan, K.Arunachalam, Mookan and A.Paulraj who had purchased the lands by sale deed dated 01.04.2005 and marked as Exs.B26, B28, B30, B32 and B49, consolidated their holdings and sold 15.35 110/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) acres of land in S.No.9 by document dated 30.06.2006 in Ex.B51. The 1st defendant in turn sold 4.77 acres to the 4th defendant / M.K.M.Mohammed Shafi.
139.Similarly, in S.No.11, by two separate sale deeds dated 31.08.2006 marked as Exs.B53 and B54, Sellapandian and 20 others conveyed 3 acres and 2.55 acres in S.No.11 to Mohammed Shafi. Mohammed Shafi and Ayesha Dowlath conveyed 15.35 acres in S.No.9 to TLS. Ramakrishnan and Shanmuga Sundaram. The lands slowly meandered around to the holding of Mohammed Shafi, who then obtained permission to form a layout of more than 100 plots, obtained necessary permission from the statutory authorities and thereafter, sold the lands to various purchasers for consideration.
140.Exs.B29, B30 and B31 are the sale deeds in favour of Shifa. It is contended that the documents traced the title. Since it was evident that the lands which had already been sold to the Trust had again been dealt with and Shifa had purchased the same, Shifa had addressed a communication dated 01.04.2008 marked as Ex.B6 to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Tirunelveli. In the said letter, there was reference to an earlier meeting convened by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE on 31.03.2008 and Shifa claimed that it was insisted that they should part with the remaining lands unsold by them in S.Nos.9 and 11 111/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) to the 11th day Aadi Thapasu Mandagapadi Kattalai Trust. In the said communication, Shifa asserted that they had purchased the lands in S.Nos.9 and 11 after thoroughly verifying the title of their vendors. It was also contended that the revenue records and the encumbrance certificates did not reflect the name of the Trust. It was stated that had the name being reflected, Shifa would not have come forward to purchase the lands.
141.Shifa had purchased the properties by sale deeds dated 30.06.2006 and 31.08.2006. The patta had also been issued by the revenue authorities. Shifa had also taken physical possession of the lands. It was further stated that when the project of developing residential colony was in progress, the Managing Trustee of the Trust approached Shifa in May 2007 and claimed that the Trust has title over the property. It had been further contended by Shifa that they were open to settlement. They mentioned that they had already sold lands in S.Nos.9 and 11 to 130 persons who had also constructed houses. They had also stated that they would give the remaining lands and settle the issue by compensating a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre and it was stated that the trustee of the Trust had also agreed for this arrangement.
112/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
142.It was also stated that the Managing Trustee of the Trust had also approached the Commissioner, HR & CE by filing an application under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. By the said letter Shifa increased the offer of compensation to Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. The offer was extended to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- by a subsequent communication by Shifa, which was marked as Ex.B7 dated 08.01.2009. They wrote a further communication seeking settlement of the issues by Ex.B8 dated 20.05.2009. But however, after the institution of the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2010, by a further communication dated 12.10.2010 which was marked as Ex.B9, Shifa withdrew their compromise proposals.
143.All these documents would only show that, it was to the knowledge of all the parties that the lands had already been conveyed to the Trust and had again been dealt with. Shifa was conscious that it would be in their interest to settle the issues by paying adequate compensation to the Trust. This offer itself though stated without prejudice, would however indicate that Shifa had accepted to the title of the Trust, but the offer of settlement alone was without prejudice to exercising their rights in manner known to law. These communications would make it evident that, though the lands had been purchased by 130 persons, a 113/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) cloud remained over the title of the lands conveyed by Shifa. It would be poor argument to advance that Shifa was not aware of the sale deeds in favour of the Trust. There was a responsibility to do due diligence before committing themselves, to purchase the lands and later conveying them by subdividing them into plots to 130 families.
144.In view of these facts, the only answer that could be arrived at is that, Shifa was not a bonafide purchaser and their vendors did not have title to convey the properties and consequently, did not have marketable title to form a layout and to convey the land by plots to the various purchasers.
145.Point Nos.5 and 6 are answered, accordingly.
Point No.7:
146.The discussion thus far, has crystallized the fact that the suit properties had been purchased by the Trust under authority granted under the Trust Deed and are therefore, specific religious endowment. But the trustees had probably deliberately overlooked the developments, which had taken place on the ground over the lands. Shifa had promoted a housing project and if they were able to sell 114/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the plots to 130 purchasers, they should have indulged in aggressive advertising and marketing openly. This leads to the only conclusion that the Trust was aware of the sale, but kept silent till the Temple instituted O.S.No.566 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, seeking a relief of declaration that the lands are specific religious endowment properties and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions put up.
147.It was only three years later that the Trust filed O.S.No.117 of 2010. It is evident that, the trustees did not take any step, whatsoever, to protect the lands. Shifa had entered into the arena and had sub-divided the lands into plots and had sold them to about 130 individuals.
148.The following facts cannot be either denied or disputed:
i).The suit schedule lands are no longer vacant lands.
ii).By a series of documents, Shifa had purchased the lands, when title stood vested with the Trust.
iii).They had been sub-divided into plots and conveyed to purchasers.
iv).The purchasers had put up constructions and are in physical occupation.
v).The Trust / trustees had not raised any protest or objection when such 115/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) development / constructions were taking place.
vi).It was the Temple which first instituted a suit in O.S.No.566 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.
vii).Shifa offered settlement without prejudice, reserving their right to claim title over the lands.
viii).The Trust also filed an application under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, seeking sanction to convey the lands or to deal with the lands.
149.These facts, would go to show that, even if any mandatory injunction is granted to the Temple or to the Trust to demolish the constructions put up would not be possible to execute the same in view of the complex third party interests which had now arisen over the lands and the constructions thereon. It is under these circumstances, we hold that it only be prudent to fall back on the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. The Trust had failed in its obligation to protect the objects of the Trust in letter and spirit. They cannot be considered as de jure or de facto title holders of the land as on date. But the character of the lands as specific religious endowment, cannot change.
116/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
150.Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC is as follows:
O41 R33. Power of Court of Appeal.—The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees.
151.In (2003) 9 SCC 606, Banarsi and others Vs. Ram Phal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the nature and scope of an appellate Court’s power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC., reading the said provision with Order 41 Rule 4 CPC. It had been held as follows, following the dictum laid down in earlier pronouncements:
“15……. The abovesaid provisions Order 41 Rule 4 CPC confer power of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice between the parties and such power is unfettered by consideration of facts like what is the subject-matter of the appeal, 117/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) who has filed the appeal and whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of by modifying the judgment appealed against. While dismissing an appeal and though confirming the impugned decree, the appellate court may still direct passing of such decree or making of such order which ought to have been passed or made by the court below in accordance with the findings of fact and law arrived at by the court below and which it would have done had it been conscious of the error committed by it and noticed by the appellate court. While allowing the appeal or otherwise interfering with the decree or order appealed against, the appellate court may pass or make such further or other, decree or order, as the case would require being done, consistently with the findings arrived at by the appellate court. The object sought to be achieved by conferment of such power on the appellate court is to avoid inconsistency, inequity, inequality in reliefs granted to similarly placed parties and unworkable decree or order coming into existence. The overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. Wider the power, higher the need for caution and care while exercising the power. Usually the power under Rule 33 is exercised when the portion of the decree appealed against or the portion of the decree held liable to be set aside or interfered by the appellate court is so inseparably connected with the portion not appealed against or left untouched that for the reason of the latter portion being left untouched either injustice would result or inconsistent decrees would follow. The power is subject to at least three limitations: firstly, the power cannot be exercised to the prejudice 118/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) or disadvantage of a person not a party before the court; secondly, a claim given up or lost cannot be revived; and thirdly, such part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against or objected to by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party. A case where there are two reliefs prayed for and one is refused while the other one is granted and the former is not inseparably connected with or necessarily depending on the other, in an appeal against the latter, the former relief cannot be granted in favour of the respondent by the appellate court exercising power under Rule 33 of Order 41.
16.Panna Lal v. State of Bombay [AIR 1963 SC 1516 : (1964) 1 SCR 980] so sets out the scope of Order 41 Rule 33 in the widest terms:
The wide wording of Order 41 Rule 33 was intended to empower the appellate court to make whatever order it thinks fit, not only as between the appellant and the respondent but also as between a respondent and a respondent. It empowers the appellate court not only to give or refuse relief to the appellant by allowing or dismissing the appeal but also to give such other relief to any of the respondents as ‘the case may require’. If there was no impediment in law the High Court in appeal could, therefore, though allowing the appeal of the defendant-appellant by dismissing the plaintiff's suits against it, give the plaintiff-119/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) respondent a decree against any or all the other defendants who were parties to the appeal as respondents. While the very words of the rule make this position abundantly clear the Illustration puts the position beyond argument.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff impleading the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner seeking recovery of compensation for the work done under a contract and the price of the goods supplied. The trial court held that the State was liable as it had beyond doubt benefited by the performance of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed against the State. The State preferred an appeal in the High Court. The plaintiff and other defendants including the Deputy Commissioner were impleaded as respondents. Disagreeing with the trial court, the High Court held that the contract entered into by the Deputy Commissioner was not binding on the State Government; that the Deputy Commissioner signed the contract at his own discretion; and further, that the contract not having been entered into in the form as required under Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, was not enforceable against the State Government. The High Court also held that the Government could not be held to have ratified the action of the contract entered into by the Deputy Commissioner. The State was held also not to have benefited by the performance of the plaintiff. On this finding, the High Court set aside the trial court's decree passed against the State Government. In an appeal to this Court, the Constitution Bench held that it was a fit case for the 120/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) exercise of jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. On the findings arrived at by the High Court, while setting aside the decree against the State, the High Court should have passed a decree against the Deputy Commissioner. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to have filed any cross-objection and the Illustration appended to Order 41 Rule 33 was enough to find solution.
17. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Shambehari Lal Jagannath [AIR 1963 SC 1901 : (1964) 3 SCR 549] the three-Judge Bench speaking through Raghubar Dayal, J. observed that:
“Rule 33 really provides as to what the appellate court can find the appellant entitled to. It empowers the appellate court to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made in the proceedings before it and thus could have reference only to the nature of the decree or order insofar as it affects the rights of the appellant. It further empowers the appellate court to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. The court is thus given a wide discretion to pass such decrees and orders as the interests of justice demand. Such a power is to be exercised in exceptional cases when its non-exercise will lead to difficulties in the adjustment of rights of the various parties.” (vide AIR p. 1905, para 17) (emphasis supplied) 121/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
18. In Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh [(1975) 1 SCC 212] the following statement of law made by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision in Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi [AIR 1954 Mad 848 :
(1954) 2 MLJ 559] was cited with approval which clearly brings out the wide scope of power contained in Rule 33 and the Illustration appended thereto, as also the limitations on such power: (SCC p. 236, para 36) “Though Order 41 Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well-
defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally, a party who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. Where he fails to do so, no relief should ordinarily be given to him under Order 41 Rule 33.
But there are well-recognised exceptions to this rule. One is where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant it becomes necessary to readjust the rights of other parties. A second class of cases based on the same principle is where the question is one of settling mutual rights and obligations between 122/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) the same parties. A third class of cases is when the relief prayed for is single and indivisible but is claimed against a number of defendants. In such cases, if the suit is decreed and there is an appeal only by some of the defendants and if the relief is granted only to the appellants there is the possibility that there might come into operation at the same time and with reference to the same subject-matter two decrees which are inconsistent and contradictory. This, however, is not an exhaustive enumeration of the class of cases in which courts could interfere under Order 41 Rule 33. Such an enumeration would neither be possible nor even desirable.”
19. In the words of J.C. Shah, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose [AIR 1965 SC 1874 : (1965) 3 SCR 550] the limitation on discretion operating as bounds of the width of power conferred by Rule 33 can be so formulated: (AIR p. 1884, para 22) “The rule is undoubtedly expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretion, and to cases where interference in favour of the appellant necessitates interference also with a decree which has by acceptance or acquiescence become final so as to enable the court to adjust the rights of the parties. Where in an appeal the court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with the opinion of the court appealed from and in 123/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) adjusting the right claimed by the appellant it is necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, the power conferred by Order 41 Rule 33 may properly be invoked. The rule however does not confer an unrestricted right to reopen decrees which have become final merely because the appellate court does not agree with the opinion of the court appealed from.”
152.In the instant case, we are justified in taking recourse to Order 41 Rule 33 CPC since, the lands had been sub-divided into plots and the authorities had granted permission for such sub-division. The Trust had also not raised any objection for sale of the said plots. The authorities had also granted permission for construction of houses over the said plots and had granted amenities to the constructed building. These are the realities which the Temple has to understand and face. We hold that therefore grant of an order of mandatory injunction to demolish the construction would only be an empty formality and lead to an inexecutable decree.
153.Under these circumstances, we would direct the Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai, the 6th defendant in O.S.No.85 of 2011 and who is 124/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm ) also a respondent in the appeals and in the cross objection, to effect necessary mutation in the records that the suit lands are specific religious endowment and cannot be dealt with except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, HR & CE under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Relgious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. This would protect any further indiscriminate encumbrance over the lands. The Purchasers, if advised, are at liberty to invoke the clause of indemnity in their sale deeds as against their vendors / Shifa. We hold that we are justified in taking this step as the reality cannot be denied or ignored namely, that the lands had been sub-divided into 130 plots and sold in entirety and the purchasers have put up construction and are residing there, as on date. Point No.7 is answered accordingly.
154.In view of the above discussion, we hold that the challenge to the judgment and decree by Shifa and by the Purchasers necessarily has to fail. The challenge to the decree by the Temple will have to succeed, as the lands are declared as specific religious endowment. The Cross Objection filed by the Trust has to be dismissed.
155.In the result, 125/129 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
i).AS (MD) No.84 of 2016 is dismissed with costs.
ii).AS (MD) No.85 of 2016 is dismissed with costs.
iii).AS (MD) No.103 of 2016 is dismissed with costs.
iv).AS (MD) Nos.156 & 157 of 2024 are partly allowed with costs, holding that the suit lands are specific religious endowment, but dismissing the reliefs for mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions put up over the lands and on the other hand, directing the 6th respondent / Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, to make necessary endorsement in the Encumbrance Certificate that the lands are specific religious endowment and cannot be conveyed or dealt with in any manner whatsoever except with the sanction of the Commissioner, HR and CE as provided under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
v).Cross Objection (MD) No.36 of 2024 is dismissed with costs.
vi).Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No [C.V.K., J.] & [R.V., J.]
NCC : Yes / No 12.01.2026
smn2 /smv
126/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
To
1.The I Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Melapalayam,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Gomathiambal Sametha
Sri Sankara Narayana Swami Deity,
127/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swami Devasthanam,
Sankarankoil,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
128/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
smn2 / smv
PRE-DELIVERY COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
A.S.(MD)Nos.84, 85 and 103 of 2016, 156 & 157 of 2024
and Cross Objection (MD)No.36 of 2024
12.01.2026
129/129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 04:29:18 pm )