VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

V.Balasubramanian v. Annadurai

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
12 February 2026
Bench
S. Sountharauthor
Case no.
CRP 651/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow S. Sounthar

Judgment

ORDER The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking impleadment of respondents 8 and 9 as party defendants.

¶2The first respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration that he is entitled to perform poojas in Lord Dhroupathiamman, Murugan and Vinayagar Temples at Kandampatty Village as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.154 of 1956 and also for consequential injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 in the suit.

¶3The first respondent filed instant application seeking impleadment of proposed parties on the ground that subsequently the temple was taken over by the HR & CE department and hence, the jurisdictional Assistant commissioner of HR & CE department shall be impleaded. The first respondent also wanted to implead one Baskar, who acted as Managing Trustee of the temple at the relevant point of time. The said application was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/7th defendant has come before this court. Page2 of 5

¶4It is not in dispute that the temple administration has been taken over by the HR & CE department and non-hereditary trustees were appointed to look after the administration.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that subsequent to the impleading application, the 9th respondent herein resigned his position as Managing Trustee and therefore, his impleadment is not at all necessary. It is further submitted that the main dispute is between the petitioner and the first respondent and the presence of HR & CE department is not at all necessary.

¶6The dispute in the suit is regarding the performance of pooja in a temple. Admittedly, subsequent to the filing of the suit, the temple has been taken over by the HR & CE department and therefore, the presence of the department will certainly help the court to decide the issue in a more comprehensive way.

¶7As far as 9th respondent is concerned, there is no material available on record to suggest that he resigned from managing trusteeship. The petitioner in his affidavit only mentioned that he came to understand that 9th respondent resigned from managing trusteeship. However, the 9th respondent remained ex-parte and in the counter filed by the 8th respondent, there is no reference about the resignation of the 9th respondent. It appears that the 9th respondent has been appointed as one of the non-hereditary trustees and he has been elected as Managing Trustee of the temple. Merely because he resigned from the post of Page3 of 5 Managing Trustee, he will not be out of administration as he is entitled to continue as member of the board of trustees till expiration of his term of office. In view of the same, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 12-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To The II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. Page4 of 5

S.SOUNTHAR, J. nr CRP No. 651 of 2026 and CMP.No.3518 of 2026 12-02-2026 Page5 of 5

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 651 of 2026 and CMP.No.3518 of 2026 V.Balasubramanian ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Annadurai 2.G.Venkatachalam 3.A.Govindaraj 4.P.R.Chandran 5.P.Manoharan 6.P.Kumanan 7.K.V.Mani 8.The Assistant Commissioner Office of Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kottaimariamman Kovil Complex, Salem 636 001. 9.S.Baskar S/o. Subramani, Chariman of the Board of Trustees, 53, Drowbathi Amman Kovil Street, Kandampatti, Salem-5. Page1 of 5 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 13.11.2025 made in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.756 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. For Petitioner(s): M//s.Zeenath Begum

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.