Madras High Court
CRP/1274/2026 of Arulmigu Thiyagaraja Swamy Temple Vs Rashya Begam on 9 October 2026
CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No
s .1274
and 1275
of 2026
CRP No.1274 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA010368972026}
Arulmigu Thiyagaraja Swamy Temple
And is associated with Abhisheka Kattalai, Thiruvarur by its Prambarai Arangavalar, Velakurichi Atheenakartha Srilasri Sathiyagnana Mahadeva Deisiga Paramachariya Swamigal, Thiruvarur Town and Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Rashya Begam
2. Dhanasekaran
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 1275 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010368982026}
Arulmigu Thiyagaraja Swamy Temple
And is associated with Abhisheka Kattalai, Thiruvarur by its Prambarai Arangavalar, Velakurichi Atheenakartha Srilasri, Sathiyagnana Mahadeva Deisiga Paramachariya Swamigal.
Thiruvarur Town And Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Rashya Begam
2. Jehabar Sadiq
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 1274 of 2026:
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned Order and decree dated 09.06.2025 made in
I.A.No.17 of 2024 in RLTOP.No.3 of 2023 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur, and consequently allow the same.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:01 pm )
CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026
CRP No. 1275 of 2026:
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned Order and decree dated 09.06.2025 made in
I.A.No.18 of 2024 in RLTOP.No.4 of 2023 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur, and consequently allow the same.
For Petitioner(s)
in both CRPs :
Mr.A.Kripakaran
For Respondent(s)
in both CRPs :
Mr.R.M.Duraiswamy for R1
Ms.N.Aishwaryaa for R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.17 and 18 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023 respectively pending on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur dated 09.06.2025, wherein, the applications filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, to implead the petitioner as a party respondent, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard Mr.A.Kripakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.M.Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.N.Aishwaryaa, learned counsel for the second respondent.
3. The first respondent had filed the RLTOPs for eviction of the second respondents in these cases, who are said to be the tenants. During the pendency of these petitions, the Temple had filed Interlocutory Applications to implead itself as a party to the proceedings on the ground
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:01 pm )
CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026
that the property belongs to the Temple and that if any order is passed in the RLTOPs, it will prejudice the right of the Temple.
4. The Court below dismissed these applications mainly on the ground that the inter se dispute between the Temple and the first respondent, who filed the RLTOPs, cannot be decided in these proceedings and therefore, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Temple is the owner of the property and the property has been encroached and already, an order has been passed in a writ petition, directing the Temple to take possession of the property. While so, these petitions have been filed, as if the first respondent is the owner of the property. Hence, in order to safeguard the interest of the Temple, impleading petitions were filed in the RLTOP cases.
6. In the considered view of this Court, no useful purpose would be served for the Temple by impleading itself in the RLTOP proceedings. The right claimed by the Temple cannot be decided by the Rent Control Court. If, according to the petitioner, the person in possession of the property is a trespasser/encroacher, the Temple has sufficient powers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, to initiate proceedings for eviction. Therefore, instead of wasting time before the
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:01 pm )
CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026
Rent Control Court, the Temple could as well start proceedings under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and proceed further in accordance with law.
7. In light of the above discussions, the orders passed by the Court below does not require to be interfered with and the same are sustained. These civil revision petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.6195 and 6197 of 2026 are closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:01 pm )
CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026
To:
1. The District Munsif, Tiruvarur.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:01 pm )
CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. (drm) CRP Nos. 1274 and 1275 of 2026 09-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:01 pm )