Madras High Court Allows Appeals in Suit for Declaration and Injunction Involving Temple Properties — Dispute Over Appointment of Fit Person and Interim Orders. The Court set aside the interim order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to two Original Side Appeals (OSA Nos. 32 and 46 of 2026) filed against an interim order dated 19.01.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in Application No. 3287 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 837 of 2018. The appellants in OSA No. 32 of 2026 are R. Lakshmanaswamy (appellant/respondent 14/defendant 11 in the suit) and in OSA No. 46 of 2026 are P.S. Sridhar, C.P. Thangaraj, and A. Suresh Kumar. The respondents include Kanthakotta Ayira Vysiya Veri Chettiar Samooga Munnertra Sangam (a registered society) and others, including Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam (a temple) and various educational institutions. The suit appears to involve disputes over temple properties and the appointment of a Fit Person by the HR and CE Department. The appeals were heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu. The court reserved judgment on 25.02.2026 and pronounced it on 24.04.2026. The court allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned interim order. The judgment does not provide detailed reasoning or facts beyond the procedural history and the final order.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Appeal against interim order - The appeal was filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the OS Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 to set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018 - The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order - Held that the interim order was not sustainable (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned interim order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018 is liable to be set aside.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018 is set aside.

Law Points

  • Order 36 Rule 1 of OS Rules
  • Clause 15 of Letters Patent
  • 1865
  • Interim orders
  • Appointment of Fit Person
  • HR and CE Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 70

OSA.Nos. 32 & 46 of 2026

2026-04-24

C.V. Karthikeyan, K. Kumaresh Babu

Mr. P.R. Raman, Mr. V. Raghavachari (for appellant in OSA 32/2026); Mr. Singaravellan (for RR 1 & 3); Ms. S.P. Aarthi (for RR 20 & 21); Mr. R. Bharanidharan (for 4th respondent)

R. Lakshmanaswamy (in OSA 32/2026); P.S. Sridhar, C.P. Thangaraj, A. Suresh Kumar (in OSA 46/2026)

Kanthakotta Ayira Vysiya Veri Chettiar Samooga Munnertra Sangam and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration and injunction involving temple properties and appointment of Fit Person.

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of interim order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018.

Filing Reason

Challenge to interim order passed in a pending civil suit.

Previous Decisions

Impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018.

Issues

Whether the impugned interim order is liable to be set aside.

Submissions/Arguments

Not mentioned in the provided text.

Ratio Decidendi

The interim order was not sustainable and was set aside.

Judgment Excerpts

Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the OS Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 to set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by Hon'ble Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth in A.No. 3287 of 2025 in C.S.No. 837 of 2018.

Procedural History

The suit C.S.No. 837 of 2018 was filed. An application A.No. 3287 of 2025 was filed, which was disposed by an order dated 19.01.2026 by the learned Single Judge. Against that order, the present appeals were filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of OS Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent. The appeals were reserved on 25.02.2026 and pronounced on 24.04.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Letters Patent, 1865: Clause 15
  • Original Side Rules: Order 36 Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Appeals in Suit for Declaration and Injunction Involving Temple Properties — Dispute Over Appointment of Fit Person and Interim Orders. The Court set aside the interim order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Jud...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Extension of Solar Power Project under Force Majeure Clause: Reinstates Original Tariff. Key Judgment on Force Majeure and Tariff Reductions in Solar Power Purchase Agreements.