Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmighu Balasubramniya Swamy Temple on 27 February, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan, B.Pugalendhi
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 21.11.2025
Pronounced on 27.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
A.S(MD) No.25 of 2022
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
The District Collector,
Karur District, Karur
2. The Commissioner,
Karur Panchayat Union,
Vennamalai,
Kathapparai Post,
Karur Taluk and District ..Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
Arulmighu Balasubramniya Swamy Temple
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
Karur@ Vennamalai : Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer:-Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code
to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2021 passed in O.S. No.
17 of 2012 on the file of the District Court,Karur.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
For Respondent : Mr.R. Madhavan
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
This Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and
decree, dated 04.09.2021 passed in O.S No.17 of 2012 on the file of the
District Court, Karur.
2. The averments contained in the plaint are as follows:
The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff namely Arulmighu
Balasubramania Swamy Temple, Vennaimalai, represented by its
Executive Officer, seeking the relief of a declaration that the suit
property belongs to the temple and for a consequential direction to the
defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property after
removing the existing construction and also to pay mesne profits for the
occupation of the suit property. Subsequently, by the Proceedings of the
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department (hereinafter called as HR & CE Department), an Executive
Officer was appointed and he was conferred with the power to proceed
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
with the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to theplaintiff’s temple. As per the Settlement Register of the year 1912, it
stands in the name of the plaintiff’s temple in respect of suit S.F.No.
234/A to an extent of 1.25 Acres, out of 7.13 Acres. U.D.R. register also
shows the title of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff’s temple.
The second defendant is said to have trespassed into the suit property 20
years ago and put up a construction for its office for the purpose of the
first defendant. There were no land acquisition proceedings initiated
before taking over the suit property by the defendants. The defendants,
taking advantage of their position and power, have misused the same
and encroached the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendants
to vacate and hand over the possession, but they are not amenable and
evasive. As per Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Act, there is no limitation for recovery of
possession and there can be no adverse possession. The plaintiff issued a
notice to the defendants on 05/03/2011, regarding the illegal
encroachment, due to which, the revenues available to the plaintiff’s
temple have been lost. As the defendants are in illegal possession and
enjoyment of the property, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs as
stated above.
3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
3.The defendants, in their written statement, have inter alia
stated as follows:-
The second defendant filed a written statement denying all the
allegations and averments made in the plaint. The contention of the
plaintiff that as per 1912 Settlement Register, the suit property belongs
to the temple is denied and the same will not confer any title to the
plaintiff; the Settlement Register produced by the plaintiff does not
disclose that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff temple and it was
classified as ‘Government poramboke land’ under the control of the first
defendant herein; the plaintiff has not filed any title document to show
that it has exclusive title over the suit property; as per the records
produced by the plaintiff, the suit property is classified only as
‘poramboke land’ and no Vinayagar temple is situated in the said suit
property; since the property is a Government poramboke land, the
plaintiff cannot make any claim; the allegation of the plaintiff that 20
years ago, all of a sudden, the second defendant trespassed into the suit
property and put up the construction for its office, is denied; the suit
property is a Government poramboke land and it was under the control
4/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
and custody of the first defendant; the second defendant with theconcurrence of the Government, has put up the construction of office in
the suit property and the Hereditary Trustee of the temple and also the
entire village people are aware of the construction put up in the suit
property for public purpose, hence there is no necessity to initiate land
acquisition proceedings to acquire the suit property which is a
Government poramboke land; even as per the admission of the plaintiff,
the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property
for the past 20 years; the suit was originally filed by the Hereditary
Trustee and he was well aware of the construction put up by the second
defendant and he had not raised any objection nor obstructed at the time
of construction, hence the plaintiff is estopped claiming title to the suit
property; the office constructed in the suit property is used as Panchayat
Union Office for the larger benefit of the entire villagers; proper court
fee was not paid and hence, the second defendant prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
4.Based on the above pleadings of both parties, the trial Court
framed the following issues:
5/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration,
recovery of possession and mesne profits as claimed?
(b) Whether the suit property was classified as Government
poramboke as stated by the defendants?
(c) Whether the Court fee paid is not correct as alleged?
(d) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
5. During trial, in order to substantiate the case, on the side of the
plaintiff, the Executive Officer of the suit temple was examined as P.W.1
and 20 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A20. On the side of the
defendants, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and two
documents were marked as Exs.B1 and B2.
6. Upon completion of the trial and after hearing of the arguments
advanced on either side, the trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the
plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property as per the rights
under Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Order No.26. However, since
the defendants are wings of the Government Departments and public
6/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
money was involved in the construction of the buildings for the welfare
of the public, the trial Court directed the defendants to approach the
Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department and shall enter into a rental or lease agreement
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, failing which the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession as prayed for.
7.Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court,
the defendants as appellants have filed this appeal suit.
8.M.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellants would submit that the suit property is a Government
poramboke land belongs to the Government and that the first appellant
was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even in the settlement
register, it is mentioned only as ‘Government Poramboke’; The second
appellant had put up construction in the suit property with the
concurrence of the Government and once the property has been
classified and mentioned as Government poramboke in the revenue
7/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
records, the respondent Temple has no title over the suit property. He
would further submit that the trial Court failed to consider the oral and
documentary evidence, which established that in the revenue records,
the suit property was classified only as ‘Government Poramboke’ and
hence, the respondent-Temple is not the owner of the suit property and
it has no right or title over the same. Therefore, the suit itself is not
maintainable. However, the trial Court without considering the above
aspects, has erroneously decreed the suit. Thus the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the
appeal is to be allowed.
9.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
Ex.A3-copy of Survey and Resettlement Register of Kadhaparai Village
and Ex.A5-copy of UDR Register categorically mention the suit land as
“Temple Poramboke” and in Ex.A3, the respondent temple’s name is
explicitly reflected in the remarks column. Therefore, the contention of
the appellants that ‘poramboke’ implies only the Government’s
ownership is factually incorrect and legally un-sustainable. As
8/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
explained in Sundara Iyengar’s Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency
(p.83), “Puramboke” merely denotes land from which no revenue was
assessed; it does not denote government ownership. Historically
temples, mosques, churches, ponds, channels, kalams, schools and roads
were classified as “poramboke,” because the sovereign did not levy tax
on such community/charitable lands. Revenue Standing Order (RSO)
26, Rule 13 classifies “Temple Poramboke” as distinct from Government
Puramboke and mandates protection of such lands. GO(Ms)No.3333,
Revenue Department, dated 25.08.1960 reinforces this protection and
prohibits alienation or departmental assignment of temple poramboke
lands. Even if long-standing encroachment is pleaded, Section 109 of
HR&CE Act exempts temple property from any bar of limitation. Thus,
the appellants cannot claim title or adverse possession over temple
lands. Long possession does not create any title against a temple.
Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court is correct and requires no
interference of this Court. The trial Court has rightly held that (i) the suit
property is temple property, (ii) appellants are encroachers, and (iii)
State has no right over the temple poramboke land. Therefore, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.
9/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
11. Admittedly, the respondent Temple filed the suit against the
appellants for declaration, declaring the suit property comprised in
S.No.234/A, Kathaparai Village as belonged to the respondent Temple
and for a consequential relief of recovery of possession after removing
the encroachment. The trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the
present appeal has been filed by the Government.
12.In the amended plaint, the respondent-Temple has clearly
stated that the suit property is the temple property and the 2nd appellant
encroached upon the temple property and constructed an office twenty
years ago and at that time, the temple was under the control of the
Hereditary Trustee of the suit temple and subsequently, the temple was
brought under the control of the HR & CE Department and an Executive
Officer was appointed by the department to look after the affairs of the
temple. Therefore, the respondent Temple filed the suit for declaration
10/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
and recovery of possession.
13.A reading of the plaint shows that the respondent-Temple has
clearly pleaded that the suit property is the temple property and in
order to substantiate the same, on the side of the temple, the Executive
Officer of the temple was examined as PW1. He has clearly spoken
about the nature of the property and in support of the same, Exs.A3 and
A5 were marked.
14.A reading of Exs.A3 and A5 makes it clear that the said land
has been classified as ‘temple poramboke’. In Ex.A3, the name of the
respondent’s temple is specifically mentioned in Col.No. 12. Though, in
Ex.A3 and A5 in the other columns, it is mentioned as ‘Government
Poramboke’, whereas in the last column, it is only mentioned as ‘temple
poramboke’, which means that the suit property belongs to respondent
temple and not the Government. Revenue Standing Order (RSO) 26,
Rule 13 classified ‘Temple Poramboke’ as distinct from Government
Poramboke and mandates protection of such lands. G.O.(Ms) No.3333
Revenue Department, dated 25.08.1960 also reinforced this protection
11/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
and prohibits alienation or departmental assignment of temple
poramboke lands.
15.A combined reading of Exs.A3 and A5, Revenue Standing
Order (RSO) 26, Rule 13 and also G.O.(Ms) No.3333, Revenue
Department, dated 25.08.1960 shows that the respondent temple has
proved its case that the suit property is classified only as ‘temple
poramboke’.
16.Now the only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether
the suit property is Government poramboke, which belongs to the
appellants or the temple poramboke, which belongs to the respondent
temple.
17.As already stated, a reading of the plaint averments shows that
the respondent has clearly stated that the suit property belongs to the
temple and in order to substantiate the pleadings, on the side of the
12/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
temple, the Executive Officer of the temple was examined as P.W.1 and
through him, among other documents, the copy of the survey and
Resettlement Register of the village of Kathaparai and the copy of the
UDR register were also marked as Exs.A3 and A5 respectively.
18.Further, to substantiate his contention, PW1 has also produced
G.O.(Ms) No.3333, Revenue Department, dated 25.08.1960 and Revenue
Standing Order 26 Rule 13. Therefore, once it is proved that the suit
property belongs to the respondent temple, the question of limitation
would not arise in view of Section 109 of the HR & CE Act. Though
admittedly the second appellant constructed an office in the suit
property and the appellants claimed that they are the owners of the
property asserting right that the suit property is the Government
poramboke under the control of the first appellant and in the enjoyment
of the second appellant, the records show that without the knowledge of
the respondent temple, the appellants made a construction in the
portion of the suit property. Therefore, the trial Court held that the
respondent temple is entitled to declaration and recovery of possession
after removing the construction.
13/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
19.Once, it is proved that the suit property, which is classified as
‘temple poramboke’, as already stated, no limitation is applicable to the
temple properties, and the doctrine of adverse possession also will not
apply and therefore, the respondent temple is entitled to recovery of
possession.
20.Though the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the appellants vehemently contended that since the suit properties are
classified as Government poramboke, the temple has no right over the
same and consequently the temple is not entitled to the relief, either for
declaration or for recovery of possession and once the appellants denied
the title of the temple, it is for the temple authorities to establish their
title. Since the respondent-Temple has proved its case, the Temple is
entitled for declaration and consequential relief of recovery of
possession.
21.A combined reading of G.O.(Ms) No.3333, Revenue
Department, dated 25.08.1960 and the Revenue Standing Order 26, Rule
14/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
13 coupled with Exs.A3 and A5 shows that the respondent-Temple has
proved that the suit property is classified as ‘temple poramboke’
standing in the name of the temple. Therefore, this Court finds that the
respondent-Temple has proved the title.
22. The Government has classified lands into two categories,
namely, poramboke land and private land. Private land belongs to an
individual person and the poramboke land belongs to the Government.
However, for the poramboke, the Government is the owner of the
property and subsequently, the poramboke has been further classified
as Government Poramboke, Natham Poramboke, Road Poramboke,
Water Bodies, Burial Grounds, Threshing Floor, Meikkal Poramboke,
etc., Even the Government is the owner of all the poramboke lands. The
land is to be utilized only for that purpose it was classified, for example,
Maikkal Poramboke has to be used for grazing cattle, Temple
Poramboke has to be utilized for temple purpose, Natham Poramboke
has to be used for construction of dwelling houses and the Road
Poramboke has to be used for laying the road. If it is classified as
Government Poramboke, the same can be used only for public purpose
15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
by the Government. Even though, other classifications are there, the
Government cannot use that land for any other purposes. In case, if the
Government wants to utilize the other poramboke lands for public
purposes, alternative land has to be given for that purpose, however, as
regards the temple poramboke, deity is the owner of the property. Even
if the Government was the original owner of the property, subsequently
the said property was converted as temple poramboke and title was
passed on to the Temple and the enjoyment is also vested with the
administration of the Temple authorities, the said property is absolutely
belonged to the temple. Hence, the contention of the learned Additional
Advocate General is not acceptable.
23.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Temple, in
support of their contention, has placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
(i) M.Perumal Vs. The District Collector, Kanchipuram and Ors in
W.P.No.3236 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.3183 of 2017 dated 09.02.2017,
wherein it is held as follows:
16/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
“11. Mr.V.B.R.Menon, Advocate, present in Court also pointed
out the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subramaniaswamy
Temple, Ratnagiri v. V.Kanna Gounder (Dead) by LRs, reported in 2008
(3) Supreme 741 = (2009) 3 SCC 306, wherein G.O.Ms.No.3333,
Revenue dated 25.08.1960 has been referred to in the context of
classification of the temple poramboke land in the revenue records. The
judgment recognizes that such a land consists of unassessed waste land
by the temple and it may also include common passage, water ponds,
thrashing floor etc. By such classification, the temple obtained full right
to possession and exercise right to transfer of the lands and such a land
does not cease to be a poramboke property, over which the Government
will have control subject only to the rights of the temple. We may
reproduce paragraphs 4 and 5 as under:-
4. For the purpose of effectuating the aforementioned purpose, the
Government of Madras issued GONo.3333 on or about 25.8.1960
permitting the temple to lease out the said lands for the purpose of
augmenting its revenues subject of course to the conditions laid down
therein, which are :
1. The temple authorities before applying for assignment of the
porambokes found in excess of the requirements of the temple and worship
should obtain the consent of the H.R. & C.E. ADMN DEPARTMENT.
Such lands should be granted for cultivation only if they are cultivable
and only if they are not cultivable they should be to other uses for the
benefit of the temple and the land should be used only for the purposes for
which it is assigned”
(ii). Papala Narayanaswamy Naidu and Ors.vs. The Secretary of
17/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
State for India in Council and Ors reported in MANU/TN/0009/1912
“Turning now to the grant to the plaintiff’s predecessor,
we find that it is expressly stated to be “on Shrotriem tenure.”
A Shrotriem is stated in Wilson’s Glossary to be “Lands, or a
village held at favorable rate, properly an assignment of land
or revenue to a Brahman learned in the Vedas, but latterly
applied generally to similar assignments to native servants of
the Government, Civil or Military, and both Hindus and
Mahomedans as a reward for past services. A Shrotriem grant
gives no right over the lands and the grantee cannot interfere
with the occupants as long as they pay the established rents.”
The object of the grant was to make a provision for an official
whose office was no longer necessary. What was regarded was
the value of the lands as producing an income. This appears
very clearly from the terms of the Inam title deed, though no
doubt in the margin the words “beside poramboke” are added.
These words would indicate a right to poramboke land, such as
un assessed waste, but it could not include all porambokes,
since that word includes all kinds of communal property such
as burying grounds, temple sites, threshing floors and so forth,
and also public roads (called road poramboke) and rivers
(called river porambokes). It could never be supposed that
government in making a grant like Exhibit F. as a reward for
services rendered included in the grant the property of private
18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
persons, or the communal property of the villagers such as
temples, threshing floors, cattle-stands, burying grounds or
the like, or public roads, simply because they are included in
the area of the village as shown in the village and survey
accounts, and are not in terms excepted from the grant. Nor do
we think that there is any reason to hold that the Government
intended to convey or did in fact convey to the grantee any
rights in the bed of the river, because for administrative and
survey purposes a part of it was included in the village.
(iii). PL. Murugappan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the
District Collector, District Collector’s Officer, Sivagangai and others in
SA(MD) No.443 of 2017
As far as limitation is concerned, for any encroachment of temple land
there cannot be any limitation. Since the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
Suo Moto W.P.No.574 of 2015 had directed for recovery of all temple lands and
directed the HR and CE Department to recover the temple lands and there
cannot be limitation for any encroachers. In the present case, even though the
temple authorities are aware of the construction, the temple authorities have
submitted objections, but the objections of the temple were not considered by the
defendants. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion limitation will not
arise.
19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
(iv) M/s.Arulmighu Thiru Neelakanda Nayanar Mayandi
Swamigal Trust .vs. The District Collector/Chairman, Local Planning
Authority, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai in WP(MD) No.6966 of 2023
9.In N.S.Kuppuswamy Odayar v. The Panchayat Narthangudi (1971) 1
MLJ 190, it was held that the mere fact that in the re-settlement register, a
particular piece of land has been described as ‘Poramboke’ will not by itself
establish title of the government to the land in question. S.Sundararaja
Iyengar in his classic work Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency writes
as follows :
The whole area of a Tamil village is divided into (1) warapat, (2)
tirwapat, (3) tarisu, and (4) poramboke. Warapat are the cultivable lands
which give waram or share of the produce, generally nanja or wet lands;
tirwapat, lands which pay a tirwa or money tax, generally punjas or cultivated
wastes, and gardens; tarisu, waste divided into two classes, sheykal carambo
i.e., cultivable waste and anadi carambo i.e. immemorial waste; and
poramboke, lands incapable of cultivation consisting of rocks, public roads,
beds of rivers, tanks and watercourses, burning grounds, the paracheri or
suburbs of the village occupied by the huts of pariahs and other outcastes, the
lands on which the different temples stand and the site of the village itself
called nuttum.
A learned Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 3
MLJ 216 (Muthammal v. State of Tamil Nadu) had noted that patta was issued
only for assessed lands and that is why, even Natham was called as
20/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
‘poramboke’. Puram means outside . Poke means revenue record .Poramboke lands means the lands which were not assessed in the revenue
records and which were outside the revenue accounts. It only means that
property which fell outside the tax assessment net was referred to as
poramboke .
10.The foregoing discussion is sufficient to conclude that the
classification of the land as poramboke will not make any difference or take
away the rights of the temple. There is yet another way of approaching the
issue. In England, all land was deemed to vest in the Crown. The position in
India was however the opposite. S.Sundararaja Iyengar in his work says thus :
both under Hindu and Mahomedan laws land was not vested in the
king and that the proprietor had an absolute ownership and dominion therein,
subject to the payment of a share of the produce which was, however, liable to
variation at the will of the sovereign .
Possession has always been held to be prima facie evidence of
ownership and called as nine points in law [Shanti Kumar Panda v.
Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438]. The revenue records produced by the
respondents themselves show that the land has been in possession of the
temple for several decades. The State itself has recognized the possession of
the temple. A simple conclusion from the aforementioned precedents
(Subramania Swamy Temple, Rathnagiri v. Kanna Gounder (dead) by LRs and
S.Sridhar v. State of Tamil Nadu) is that mentioning of the temple in column 12
actually means that the land should be called as temple poramboke. Once a
land is classified as temple poramboke, the consequence is that it has to be
21/24https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
used only for the benefit of the temple. Yet another approach is that when thetemple has been in settled possession of the lands in question beyond the
limitation period, even assuming that the government had right originally, it
would stand extinguished. In this case, we have to come to such a conclusion
in view of the entries not only in the Town Survey Register but also in the Re-
settlement register as well as the A Register
24.Therefore, on a combined reading of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, decisions referred to above and also the Law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the subject matter, this Court
finds that in Exs.A3 and A5, the suit property has been specifically
mentioned only ‘temple poramboke’ and therefore, the respondent-
Temple is the owner of the property and they are entitled to get the
relief as prayed for. The trial Court also has rightly granted relief as
sought for by the respondent-Temple with certain conditions.
25.For all the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
26.In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, confirming the
impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S. No.17
of 2012. No costs
(P.V.,J.) (B.P.J.,)
27.02.2026
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
aav
To
The District Court,Karur
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )
AS(MD) No.25 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
aav
A.S(MD) No.25 of 2022
27.02.2026
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:03 pm )