CRP(MD)/203/2024 of Poosa Durai Vs Velmurugan on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in IA.No.2 of 2023 in OS.No.289 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudharam.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful prayer and worship activities and from putting any lock on the suit schedule temple.

3. According to the petitioners, the suit schedule temple is a family temple belonging to three brothers, namely, Kandha Nadar, Palavesa Muthu Nadar and Rama Nadar. Kandha Nadar had one son, namely, Subbaiah Nadar. Palavesa Muthu Nadar had three sons, namely, Chinnappa Nadar, Anthony Nadar and Susai Nadar. Rama Nadar had five sons, namely, Subbaiah Nadar, Chinnathambi Nadar, Muthaiah Nadar, Palavesa Nadar and Arunachala Nadar. It is stated that the temple is the exclusive property of the aforesaid three families.

4. One of the brothers, namely, Kandha Nadar, shifted his residence from Chettikulam to Pudukudiyiruppu. However, according to the petitioners, the members of his family continued to participate in the spiritual activities conducted in the temple every year. The first petitioner claims to be the legal heir of Kandha Nadar, whereas the respondents are stated to be the legal heirs of Palavesa Muthu Nadar and Rama Nadar.

5. In the year 2015, a dispute arose between the parties in relation to the purchase of property in the name of the temple. Since the petitioners were residing away from the suit temple, they alleged that, whenever they visited the temple, the respondents prevented them from entering the temple and refused to hand over the key to them. As the dispute continued despite their request for the key, the petitioners instituted the suit.

6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No.2 of 2023 seeking amendment of the plaint. In the proposed amendment, they stated that there was no necessity to keep the temple locked and also conceded that, for the safety of all concerned, the temple could be locked. However, since they were unable to participate in the poojas and other worship activities, they sought an amendment to the effect that the respondents should hand over the key to them. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

7. The respondents filed a counter opposing the application. According to them, a resolution had already been passed in the year 2018 providing that one key of the temple should be handed over to the President of the Administrative Committee and another key should remain with the poosari. It was further contended that the petitioners were not regularly visiting the temple or participating in the worship activities and, therefore, the amendment application was liable to be dismissed.

8. The trial Court, after considering the rival submissions, held that the proposed amendment was unnecessary. The trial Court also took note of the fact that an agreement had already been entered into between the petitioners/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants in respect of the management and custody of the temple key. The petitioners had admitted the said arrangement and had also signed the relevant petition. Therefore, the trial Court held that the petitioners could not subsequently question the same. The trial Court further observed that, on account of the filing of successive applications, the trial had not commenced and that the proposed amendment would further delay the proceedings. On those grounds, the application was dismissed.

9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. The petitioners are admittedly not residents of the village. Their principal contention is that the temple should not be kept closed. However, by way of the proposed amendment, they have taken an alternative stand that, if the temple is to be kept locked, the key should be handed over to them.

11. If the proposed amendment is permitted, other legal heirs may also come forward with similar claims regarding the custody of the key and the management of the temple. It is also not in dispute that a resolution was passed providing that the keys should be entrusted to the President of the Administrative Committee and the poosari. The trial Court has already observed that the further course of action regarding the management of the temple can be decided after adjudication of the suit.

12. At this stage, the proposed amendment is not necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Permitting the amendment may give rise to further disputes and result in multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court has therefore rightly dismissed the application. This Court finds no illegality, infirmity or material irregularity in the order warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

13. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court and participate in the trial. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of O.S.No.289 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudharam.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2024 25.09.2026