This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 3rd Defendant against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.7.2008 passed in IA.No.277/2007 in OS.No.274/207 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.
2. The 1st Respondent/plaintiff has filed the above said suit against one Ganapathiammal and Shanmugam/defendants 1 and 2 and the Petitioner/3rd Defendant for the relief of mandatory injunction, directing them to remove the unauthorised construction put up by them and for permanent injunction restraining them from putting up any further construction or shelter in the suit property. The suit is filed by the Arulmigu Illuppaiyadi Dharmaraja Drowpathy Amman Koil, Kumbakona, through its Hereditary Trustee Murugan against the Defendants 1 and 2, who have sub leased the suit premises to the Petitioner restraining them from putting up any further construction and to remove the structure put up by them and restore the suit property to its original position.
3. According to the Petitioner, Arjunan, the father of Murugan is not the Hereditary Trustee and he filed a suit as against the Executive Officer of the A/m.Naganatha Swamy Thirukoil Thirunageswaram, Kumbakonam in OS.No.18/1998 and the suit was dismissed. Likewise, another suit was filed by Arjunan in OS.No.31/1998 before the District Munsif, Kumbakonam and the same was allowed to be dismissed for default. After the death of Arjunan, the Plaintiff Murugan did not prosecute the said suits as he was aware that Arjunan was not the Managing Trustee. Further it is averred that Arjunan filed WP.No.548/2001 and that was also disposed of with a direction to pursue his remedy in the suits. According to him, Arujunan moved the HR&CE Department to appoint him as a Hereditary Trustee, but the same was declined and disciplinary action was initiated by the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department as against one Surya Gandi and further appointed the Executive Officer of the 2nd Respondent Temple as a fit person of the suit temple. As neither Arjunan nor Murugan was appointed as trustees, Murugan has no locus standi to file the present suit as the Managing Trustee and in such facts of and circumstances, he has filed the application in IA.No.277/2007 to implead the Respondents 3 and 4 herein and the said application was dismissed, as against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. Mr.T.V.Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Temple is under the control and administration of HR&CE Department and since the claim made by Arjunan to appoint him as Hereditary Trustee had been negatived and Murugan has not been appointed as hereditary trustee, the said Murugan has no locus standi to file the suit against the Petitioner and two others and for better adjudication of the matter in the light of previous proceedings the proposed Respondents are necessary and proper parties and the order of the court below not considering the above aspects is unsustainable in law.
5. The proposed parties have filed their counter in IA.No.277/2007 and they have specifically stated that Murugan has been appointed as a hereditary trustee. The relevant paragraph in the counter filed by the 1st Respondent is extracted below for better appreciation:- "7. The allegations in paragraph 8 of the affidavit are also not correct. The Petitioner who was able to give the minutest details of various proceedings between Arjunan and HR&CE department the has failed to note that the same Department has appointed Murugan as Hereditary Trustee. Therefore, after this appointment all prior proceedings have become infructuous and non est in the eye of law. Hence, even assuming without conceding that Arjunan was not appointed as hereditary trustee Murugan has been appointed as Hereditary Trustee and therefore, the present petition is clearly unsustainable under law and totally not maintainable on facts."
Further it has been categorically stated that the proposed Respondents are not proper and necessary parties. The 2nd Respondent has also filed a counter affirming the statement made by the 1st Respondent that Murugan has been appointed as a hereditary trustee.
6. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department, Myladuthurai appointing Murugan/plaintiff as hereditary trustee under Section 54 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, is also produced and it settles the dispute. It shows that the claim of Murugan has been recognised and he has been appointed as hereditary trustee of the Plaintiff Temple vide proceedings Ni.Mu.No.506/06/B1 dated 23.1.2007. Hence, the suit filed by the Plaintiff against the tenants is maintainable and the proposed parties are not necessary parties to the suit, as they have no direct nexus in the subject matter of the suit.
7. In every suit the Plaintiff is the Dominus litus and it is for the Plaintiff to choose his opponents. The Plaintiff cannot be compelled to fight against person not of his choice unless it is required by a positive rule of law. In the instant case, the Plaintiff did not claim any relief against the proposed parties and he should not be forcibly made to involve into controversies with persons whom he does not want to implead. That apart, the impleadment of the proposed parties is only likely to change the complexion of litigation and would raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of the litigation. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that without the proposed parties, the adjudication of the issue cannot be proceeded with is not tenable as the Plaintiff has been appointed as the hereditary trustee by the HR&CE Department and he can maintain the suit as hereditary trustee of the temple.
8. In view of the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the court below is perfectly right in dismissing the application and it does not require any interference by this court and this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
Srcm To:
The Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.