2026:MHC:573C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDER RESERVED ON: 12 / 11 / 2025

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 12 / 02 / 2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CRP NOS.2474 AND 2478 OF 2019

AND

CMP NO.16165 OF 2019 IN CRP NO.2474 OF 2019

AND

CMP NO.16171 OF 2019 IN CRP NO.2478 OF 2019

CRP NO.2474 OF 2019

The Pattadaras and the Permanent Resident of

Thangi Village, Kancheepuram District

for themselves and on behalf of the entire

Village People

Represented by:

1.N.Radhakrishnan

S/o.Natesa Naicker

No.37, Big Street, Thangai Village,

Then Kancheepuram Taluk,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District.

2.G.Mohan

S/o.Govindaraja Naicker

Salai Street, Thangai Village,

Then Kancheepuram Taluk,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District. … Petitioners /

Respondents 1&3 /

Plaintiffs 1&3

Versus

Page No.1 of 16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

1.A/m.Kailasanathar Temple

Thangio Village

Rep. By Executive Officer

Addl. Charge Katchabeswarar Devasthanam

Kancheepuram.

2.The Special Tahsildar

Addl. Dravida Welfare Department

Kancheepuram.

3.The Commissioner

H.R. & C.E. Department (Admin.)

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 34.

4.The Deputy Commissioner

H.R. & C.E. Department (Admin.)

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

5.The Asst. Commissioner

H.R. & C.E. Department

Kancheepuram.

6.The Joint Commissioner

H.R. & C.E. Department

Vellore. ... Respondents 1-6 /

Petitioners /

Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7

7.The Pattadaras and the Permanent Resident of

Thangi Village, Kancheepuram District

for themselves and on behalf of the entire

Village People

Represented by:

(i) Devaraj Naicker

S/o. Manickam

No.37, Big Street, Thangai Village,

Then Kancheepuram Village,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District.

Page No.2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

(ii)Sivaji

S/o. Elumalai

Salai Street, Thangi Village,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District. … 7

th

Respondent /

Respondents 2 &4 /

Plaintiffs 2 & 4

P RAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated

December 11, 2018 passed in I.A.No.141 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 1998

on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gokul

for M/s.S.L.Sudharsanam

For Respondents 1-6: Mrs.R.Anitha

Special Government Pleader

For Respondent – 7: Passed away

CRP NO.2478 OF 2019

The Pattadaras and the Permanent Resident of

Thangi Village, Kancheepuram District

for themselves and on behalf of the entire

Village People

Represented by:

1.N.Radhakrishnan

S/o.Natesa Naicker

No.37, Big Street, Thangai Village,

Then Kancheepuram Taluk,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District.

Page No.3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

2.G.Mohan

S/o.Govindaraja Naicker

Salai Street, Thangai Village,

Then Kancheepuram Taluk,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District. … Petitioners /

Respondents 1&3 /

Plaintiffs 1&3

Versus

1.K.Subramanian (Died)

Substituted

K.Devarajan

Secretary

Salavai Thozhilalar Sangam,

Salai Street, Iyyampettai Village,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District.

(R-1 substituted and impeladed K.Devarajan

Secretary vide Court Order dated September

19, 2025 made in CMP No.28022 of 2024 in

CRP No.2478 of 2019) … 1

st

Respondent /

Petitioner /

3

rd

Defendant

2.The Pattadaras and the Permanent Resident of

Thangi Village, Kancheepuram District

for themselves and on behalf of the entire

Village People

Represented by:

(i) Devaraj Naicker

S/o. Manickam

No.37, Big Street, Thangai Village,

Then Kancheepuram Taluk,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District.

Page No.4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

(ii)Sivaji

S/o. Elumalai

Salai Street, Thangi Village,

Kancheepuram Taluk & District. … 2

nd

Respondent /

Respondents 2 &4 /

Plaintiffs 2 & 4

P RAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated

December 11, 2018 passed in I.A.No.140 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 1998

on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gokul

for M/s.S.L.Sudharsanam

For Respondent-1 : Passed away – Steps taken

For Respondent-2 : Passed away

COMMON ORDER

Feeling aggrieved by the Common Order dated December 11, 2018,

passed in I.A. Nos.140 and 141 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 1998 on the file

of the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, the respondents in the

Interlocutory Applications who are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit, have

preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

Page No.5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be re-

ferred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Case of the plaintiffs, who have filed the Suit in representative ca-

pacity as indicated in the cause title, is that an extent of 12 Acre 25 Cents

in Survey No.45 of Thangi Village is the suit property. The suit property

belongs to the first defendant - Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple represen-

ted by its Executive Officer. In the last week of July 1994, the second de-

fendant / Special Tahsildhar, Kancheepuram, visited the suit property with

surveyor and surveyed about 4 Acres of land on the western side thereof.

When enquired by the then trustee of the Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple -

P.Padmanaban, it came to light that the sixth defendant has recommended

on March 12, 1994 to make house site plots in the suit property for washer-

men’s community people, at the instance of defendants 2 and 3. The trust-

ees of the Temple and the village people filed an objection before fourth

defendant that no temple land could be sold or made use for different ob-

ject other than that for which it is held by the Temple. Since the plaintiffs

are worshippers having interest in the Temple, they are entitled to protect

the Temple property/suit property, as the defendants 4 to 7 failed to protect

the same. Hence the Suit for permanent injunction not to plot out or make

Page No.6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

house sites in the suit property and not to accord permission or sanction for

the said purpose or sale.

4. That being the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants entered ap-

pearance through Government Pleader - Mr.G.Manimaaran. Despite suffi-

cient opportunities, the defendants did not file written statement and hence,

they were called absent, set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on

December 16, 2005.

5. Subsequently, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 filed a petition to set

aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Pro-

cedure, 1908 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 in I.A. No.141 of 2016 to condone the delay of 3477 days. Sim-

ilarly, the third defendant filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree

along with a Section 5 Application in I.A. No.140 of 2016 to condone the

delay of 3477 days. They were all filed on the same day viz., November

24, 2015.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.141 of 2016, it has been

stated that when the case was posted on June 27, 2005 for filing written

Page No.7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

statement, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 could not appear before Court as

some case papers relating to the case were misplaced and their Counsel

could not be contacted for filing written statement. In these circumstances,

an ex-parte decree was passed on June 27, 2005. According to defendants

1, 2, 4 to 7, this is the reason behind the delay of 3477 days.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.140 of 2016, it has been

stated that when the case was posted on December 16, 2005 for filing writ-

ten statement, on that day the third defendant / President of Washermen

Association was suffering from high fever and hence, he could not appear

before Court and could not contact his Counsel. In these circumstances, an

ex-parte decree was passed on December 16, 2005.

8. In I.A. No.141 of 2016, the Executive Officer of first defendant -

Temple namely Vijayan was examined as P.W.1 and he marked Ex-P.1 to

Ex-P.4. In I.A. No.140 of 2016, the petitioner therein namely Subramani

was examined as P.W.1 and no document was marked. While no oral evid-

ence was adduced on the side of the respondents in both the Interlocutory

Applications, Judgment of this Court passed in Chellapandi -vs- Special

Commissioner, reported in (2009) 2 LW 706 was marked as Ex-R.1.

Page No.8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

9. The Trial Court, upon hearing either side, concluded that the suit

property belongs to Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple. Notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September

7, 1995. The Temple had no objection for the acquisition and the deman-

ded compensation not below Rs.3.8/- per sq. ft. Thereafter, declaration un-

der Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made and published

in the Government Gazette on March 5, 1996, and an Award was also

passed. Government took possession of the acquired land, handed over

possession to beneficiaries and issued Patta in favour of 106 people as

early as on May 30, 1998. One Padmanaban challenged the acquisition

proceedings before this Court by way of a writ petition and the same was

dismissed on June 21, 2006. However, before dismissal of the writ petition,

the present Suit was decreed and an ex-parte injunction was granted. The

Government, Temple and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, 1959 [HR & CE] Officials did not inform this Court of the Suit pro-

ceedings. Consequently, there are contradictory verdicts in respect of the

land acquisition. Since the validity of the land acquisition proceedings

have been upheld by this Court, some adjudication on merits is required.

Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court al-

Page No.9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

lowed the Interlocutory Applications on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- in

each on or before December 20, 2018.

10. Feeling aggrieved by the Common Order passed by the Trial

Court, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petitions.

C.R.P. No.2478 of 2019 is preferred over the Order in I.A.No.140 of 2016.

C.R.P. No.2474 of 2019 is preferred over the Order in I.A.No.141 of 2016.

11. Mr.R.Gokul, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petition-

ers/plaintiffs, would submit there is no acceptable reason was assigned for

condoning the huge delay of 3477 days. The conduct of the HR & CE Au-

thorities show a callous and insincere attitude towards the Court proceed-

ings as well as the plaintiffs. The Trial Court without considering the facts

and circumstances of this case, erred in allowing the Interlocutory Applica-

tions. The Interlocutory Applications are liable to be dismissed. Accord-

ingly, he would pray to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.

12. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing

for Respondents 1 to 6 / Defendants 1 to 6 would submit that already the

Government acquired the land and handed over possession to beneficiaries

Page No.10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

and issued Patta in their favour. The earlier challenge to the land acquisi-

tion proceedings by way of a writ before this Court was also dismissed.

Admittedly, the first defendant - Temple is the owner of the suit property

and the plaintiffs have no right or interest over the suit property. As pro-

ceedings in respect of the same subject matter was going on before this

Court as well, over sightedly and inadvertently the Suit was let ex-parte

and eventually ended in an ex-parte decree. Since this Court has upheld the

acquisition proceedings, the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court is in

contradiction of the same. In the interest of justice and in order to decide

the Suit on merits, the Trial Court allowed the petitions on payment of

costs. There is no need to interfere with it. Accordingly, she would pray to

dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.

13. Heard on either side. Perused the evidence available on record.

14. This Court has perused the affidavits filed in support of the Inter-

locutory Applications. On the face of it, the reasons assigned for the delay

of 3477 days are unsatisfactory. Further, the reasons are untenable in

nature and reflect a callous attitude on the part of the HR & CE Authorities

towards Court proceedings, which cannot be approved by this Court. How-

Page No.11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

ever, considering that the suit property is admittedly a Temple property, a

portion of which was acquired by the Government for a welfare scheme

and handed over to beneficiaries, and also considering that this Court, in a

writ petition involving the very same property, has upheld the acquisition,

this Court is of the view that the Trial Court was right in allowing the In-

terlocutory Applications in the interest of justice and so as to decide the

matter on merits.

15. Nevertheless, the Trial Court failed to take into account that the

plaintiffs have been litigating since 1998 for nearly a decade and erred in

imposing only nominal costs. The Trial Court ought to have exercised its

discretion and awarded at least the litigation costs to the plaintiffs. Hence,

this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petitions in part and to in-

terfere with the Trial Court’s order only with respect to the quantum of

costs, as detailed below:

(i)The petition in I.A. No.140 of 2016 is allowed subject to payment of

cost of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] to the

plaintiffs.

Page No.12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

(ii)The petition in I.A. No.141 of 2016 is allowed subject to payment of

cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] to the plaintiffs. The

petitioners therein shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the said

amount.

(iii)The aforementioned amounts, less the amount if any already paid,

shall be paid directly to the plaintiffs on or before March 12, 2026,

failing which the respective Interlocutory Application shall stand

dismissed automatically.

(iv)The petitioners in the Interlocutory Applications, after payment of

costs as stated supra, shall file a memo before the Trial Court on

March 12, 2026. On receipt of such memo, the Trial Court shall take

the Order IX Rule 13 Applications on file and proceed as per law.

(v)In case, the plaintiffs refuse to receive the costs, the petitioners in

the Interlocutory Applications shall deposit the same before the Trial

Court to the credit of O.S. No.369 of 1998.

Page No.13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

16. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed in part to the extent in-

dicated above. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there

shall be no order as to costs in these Civil Revision Petitions.

12 / 02 / 2026

Index : Yes

Speaking Order : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

TK

To

The Principal District Munsif

Kancheepuram.

Page No.14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

Page No.15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.Nos.2474 & 2478 of 2019

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

TK

PRE-DELIVERY COMMON ORDER MADE IN

CRP NOS.2474 AND 2478 OF 2019

12 / 02 / 2026

Page No.16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis