1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD)Nos.498 and 504 of 2011 The Parakala Madam rep. by its Jeer, Srimath Brahmathanthra Swathanthra Jeer Swamy, through his Power of Attorney H.R.Krishnaprasad. .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps./Defendant Vs. 1.C.Seshadri .. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.R.Madhavachari .. 2nd Respondent/2nd defendant in C.R.P(MD)No.498 of 2011 3.R.Raghunathan, The Secretary of the Sri Rangam Vadakalai Iyengar Sabha, Having Office at No.160, South Chitra Street, Srirengam, Tiruchirappalli – 6. .. Respondent/Plaintiff in C.R.P(MD)No.504 of 2011 Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.1277 and 1110 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent No.1 : M/s.K.Naveena in C.R.P(MD)No.498 of 2011 and Respondent in C.R.P(MD)No.504 of 2011. For Respondent No.2 : No appearance in C.R.P(MD)No.498 of 2011. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.1277 of 2010 and 1110 of 2010, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The first respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.498 of 2011 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.1277 of 2010 and respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.504 of 2011 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as first defendant/defendant respectively. The present petitions have been filed so as to strike off the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.1277 of 2010 and 1110 of 2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the suit property is the absolute property of the revision petitioner and in which the plaintiff in Original Suit No.1277 of 2010 as well as the plaintiff in Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 are not having any manner of right, title and interest and these suits have been instituted for the relief of permanent injunction without having any semblance of right, title and interest and therefore the present suits are not legally maintainable and further Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 has been instituted by the plaintiff therein as Secretary of the Sri Rangam Vadakalai Iyengar Sabha and the said suit has not been instituted in a representative capacity and further no resolution has been passed so as to authorise the plaintiff therein to institute the suit and further as per Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, these suits cannot be instituted and therefore the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.1277 and 1110 of 2010 are liable to be struck off. 4. For considering the submissions made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit Nos.1277 of 2010 and 1110 of 2010. In Original Suit No.1277 of 2010, it is prayed to pass an order of permanent injunction by way of restraining the defendants therein. In Original Suit No.1110 of 2010, it is prayed to pass an order of permanent injunction against the defendant therein not to demolish the suit property. Therefore in both the suits, the reliefs sought for therein are not identical. 5. The main attack made on the side of the revision petitioner is that Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 has been instituted as Secretary of the Sri Rangam Vadakalai Iyengar Sabha and therefore the same should be filed in a representative capacity. Since the respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.504 of 2011 and the plaintiff in Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 as stated in the plaint as Secretary of Sri Rangam Vadakalai Iyengar Sabha, question of filing the said suit in a representative capacity does not arise. The other attack made on the side of the revision petitioner is that no resolution has been passed so as to permit the plaintiff in Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 to institute the same. The said point has to be decided only after getting proper evidence in Original Suit No.1110 of 2010 and not now. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also taken umbrage under Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the same reads as follows: "Bar of suits in respect of administration of management of religious institutions, etc.: No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of law, except under and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act". 7. Even from a cursory reading of the said provision, it is made clear that no civil suit would lie with regard to administration or management of a religious institution. 8. The present suits have been instituted only for getting the reliefs of perpetual injunction in different forms. The present suits do not relate to either administration or management of the Mutt mentioned in the plaint. Therefore it goes without saying that the provision of Section 108 of the said Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.1277 of 2010 and 1110 of 2010. Therefore viewing from any angle, the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.1277 of 2010 and 1110 of 2010 are not liable to be struck off for the reasons mentioned in the revision petitions and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs. However the revision petitioner is directed to file written statements in both the suits and the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli is directed to dispose of both the suits before the end of March, 2012 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. Copy to : The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.R.Balakrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.41061 +2 CC to Ms.K.Navvena, Advocate, SR.No.41368 & 41369 smn COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.498 and 504 of 2011 23.11.2011 TR : 29.11.2011 : 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/