RAGHUNATH vs SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMYPOOJA DHARMAN PRIVATE TRUST

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 30/10/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NOs.2819 and 2820 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD010928722026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)No.14497 of 2026
(1).CRP(MD)No.2819 of 2026:-
st st
Raghunath : Petitioner/1 Respondent/1 Respondent/
Plaintiff

Vs.
1.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Pooja
Dharmam Private Trust @ Sri Lakshmi
Narashima Swamy Private Trust,
through its Hereditary Family Co-Trustees
namely P.Prashanth Rao,
Represented through his Power Agent-cum-
Brother P.Pranesh Rao.
2.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Pooja Dharmam
Private Trust @ Sri Lakshmi Narashima Swamy Private Trust
through its Hereditary Family Co-Trustees namely
P.Pranesh Rao. : Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners/
rd
Petitioners/3 parties
3.Shri Lakshmi Narashimasamy Private Trust,
Kumbakonam,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
rep. By its Managing Trustee,
B.Ramu
4.Shri Lakshmi Narashimasamy Private Trust,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. By its Managing Trustee K.R.Prabhu
: Respondents 3 and 4/R2 and R3/
R2 and R3/Defendants 1 and 2
Prayer:-This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, against the order in IA No.8 of 2026 in IA No.4 of
2025 in OS No.345 of 2024, dated 04/03/2026 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam.
(2).CRP(MD)No.2820 of 2026:-
st st
Raghunath : Petitioner/1 Respondent/1 Respondent/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Pooja
Dharmam Private Trust @ Sri Lakshmi
Narashima Swamy Private Trust,
through its Hereditary Family Co-Trustees
namely P.Prashanth Rao,
Represented through his Power Agent-cum-
Brother P.Pranesh Rao.
2.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Pooja Dharmam
Private Trust @ Sri Lakshmi Narashima Swamy Private Trust,
through its Hereditary Family Co-Trustees namely
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
P.Pranesh Rao. : Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners/
rd
Petitioners/3 Parties
3.Shri Lakshmi Narashimasamy Private Trust,
Kumbakonam,
rep. By its Managing Trustee,
B.Ramu
4.Shri Lakshmi Narashimasamy Private Trust,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. By its Managing Trustee K.R.Prabhu
: Respondents 3 and 4/R2 and R3/
R2 and R3/Defendants 1 and 2
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, against the order in IA No.1 of 2025 in OS No.345
of 2024, dated 04/03/2026 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabakaran
(in both cases)
For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Adithiyan
(in both cases)
COMMON ORDER
CRP(MD) No.2819 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order
dated 04/03/2026 passed in I.A No.8 of 2026 in I.A. No.4 of 2025 in O.S.
No.345 of 2024, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, whereas CRP(MD)No.2820 of 2026
has been filed challenging the order dated 04/03/2026 passed in I.A. No.1
of 2025 in O.S. No.345 of 2024, on the file of the Additional District and
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.
2.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S No.345 of 2024,
which has been filed seeking the relief of specific performance against
respondents 3 and 4 herein. The petitioner states that an agreement of sale
was entered into between the petitioner/plaintiff and respondents 3 and
4/defendants 1 and 2, who had agreed to sell the suit property belonging
to the Trust. Respondents 3 and 4/defendants 1 and 2 entered into the said
agreement in their capacity as Managing Trustees of Shri Lakshmi
Narashimasamy Private Trust. Respondents 3 and 4/defendants 1 and 2
have also filed their written statement in the suit. In the meantime,
respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A No.4 of 2025 seeking to implead
themselves as parties to the suit, namely, as defendants 3 and 4. While the
said application was pending consideration and posted for orders, they
filed another application in I.A. No.8 of 2026 seeking to reopen the suit
and permit them to file certain documents. The Trial Court allowed the
said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred
CRP(MD) No.2819 of 2026. Similarly, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed
I.A No.1 of 2025 in O.S. No.345 of 2024, seeking permission for the
second respondent herein to sign and conduct the suit in O.S No.345 of
4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
2024 and all the proceedings therein, on behalf of the first respondent
herein, in his capacity as his General Power of Attorney, pursuant to the
General Power of Attorney deed dated 14/08/2024 executed by P.
Prashanth Rao at the Embassy of India, Doha, Qatar. The said application
was also allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, CRP(MD)
No.2820 of 2026 has been filed.
3.The petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the parties seeking to
implead themselves as defendants 3 and 4 have already instituted a
separate suit in O.S No.338 of 2024, seeking a declaration that they are
the Hereditary Trustees of the Trust and other consequential reliefs.
According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 have claimed that they
were appointed as Trustees and have entered into the agreement of sale in
that capacity. The petitioner would further submit that the contesting
parties have already instituted separate proceedings challenging the status
of respondents 3 and 4 as Trustees and seeking to declare the sale deeds
and the alleged appointments or nominations made in their favour as null
and void. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when the question as to
who is legally entitled to act as Trustee of the Trust is already the subject
5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
matter of separate proceedings, respondents 1 and 2 herein cannot seek to
implead themselves in the present suit and introduce documents in
support of their rival claim. The petitioner would further contend that the
Trial Court, without properly considering the objections raised by him,
allowed the application permitting respondents 1 and 2 to produce and
mark documents on their behalf. The Trial Court also permitted the
second respondent herein to sign and conduct the suit in O.S. No.345 of
2024 and all the proceedings therein, on behalf of the first respondent
herein, in his capacity as his General Power of Attorney, pursuant to the
General Power of Attorney deed dated 14/08/2024 executed by
P.Prashanth Rao at the Embassy of India, Doha, Qatar. Hence, the
impugned orders are improper and perverse and are liable to be set aside.
Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be allowed.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2
submitted that respondents 3 and 4 have no authority or connection with
the Trust and that they have allegedly entered into agreements of sale
with several persons in collusion with certain individuals, with the
intention of alienating the properties belonging to the Trust. It is further
6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
contended that such transactions have been entered into without issuing
notice to the actual Hereditary Trustees and without obtaining permission
from the competent Court, wherever required. The learned counsel would
further submit that upon coming to know of the alleged irregularities and
transactions concerning the properties of the Trust, respondents 1 and 2
immediately took steps to implead themselves in the present suit to
protect the interests of the Trust. It is also submitted that in a similar
matter, the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat, where a settlement
was arrived at. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner
may either be an innocent purchaser or a party acting in collusion with
respondents 3 and 4. According to respondents 1 and 2, there is a
possibility that the parties may collude with each other and obtain a sale
deed in respect of the Trust property without issuing proper notice to the
Hereditary Trustees or obtaining the requisite permission from the
competent authority. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 sought to implead
themselves in the present suit to safeguard the interests of the Trust. The
learned counsel also submitted that O.S No.338 of 2024 has no
connection whatsoever with the present suit, as the said suit relates to a
different Trust, namely, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Pooja Dharmam
Private Trust, whereas the present suit concerns another Trust. Hence, the
7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
contention of the petitioner that the proceedings in the other suit would
prevent respondents 1 and 2 from participating in the present suit is
wholly misconceived. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the
impugned orders passed by the Trial Court are proper and do not warrant
interference by this Court. Hence, he prayed that both the Civil Revision
Petitions are to be dismissed.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
6.The petitioner has instituted the suit seeking specific performance
against respondents 3 and 4, who are alleged to have entered into an
agreement of sale in respect of the property belonging to Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Private Trust, claiming to act on behalf of the Trust
through its Hereditary Trustees.
7.The dispute between the parties primarily relates to the authority
and entitlement of the persons claiming to be the Hereditary Trustees of
the Trust. While respondents 1 and 2 claim that they are the Hereditary
Trustees, respondents 3 and 4 have also asserted their authority to act on
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
behalf of the Trust and have entered into an agreement of sale with the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, proceedings are already pending in
a separate suit to determine the status and identity of the persons legally
entitled to act as Trustees of the Trust. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the said suit relates to a
different Trust and has no connection with the Trust involved in the
present proceedings.
8.On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that
the persons seeking to implead themselves in the present suit claim an
interest in the Trust and its properties on the basis of their alleged status
as Hereditary Trustees. If the present suit is proceeded with without
affording them an opportunity to participate, the adjudication may affect
their alleged interest in the Trust property. Therefore, their request to
participate in the proceedings cannot be rejected at the threshold,
particularly when the question as to who is legally entitled to represent
the Trust is itself a matter of dispute.
9.Further, the principal issue arising in the suit is whether
respondents 3 and 4 were legally competent and authorised to enter into
9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
the agreement of sale with the petitioner on behalf of the Trust. The
determination of such an issue necessarily requires consideration of the
rival claims regarding the authority and status of the persons claiming to
represent the Trust.
10.In such circumstances, the rival claims regarding the status of
the Trustees may have to be considered along with the issues arising in
the present suit, subject to the jurisdiction of the competent Court. If
necessary, the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate orders for the
simultaneous trial of the connected proceedings, so that conflicting
findings may be avoided. In the meantime, the persons seeking to
implead themselves have filed certain documents before the Trial Court.
The Trial Court has merely permitted them to mark those documents,
subject to proof and relevancy. Such permission, by itself, does not
amount to acceptance of the contents of the documents as true or establish
the rights claimed by the parties on the basis of those documents.
11.It is always open to the petitioner to raise appropriate objections
regarding the admissibility, proof and relevancy of the documents at the
appropriate stage of the proceedings. The Trial Court is also bound to
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
consider such objections in accordance with law before relying upon the
documents for the purpose of adjudication. Similarly, insofar as the order
permitting the second respondent herein to sign and conduct the suit in
O.S No.345 of 2024 and all the proceedings therein, on behalf of the first
respondent herein, in his capacity as his General Power of Attorney,
pursuant to the General Power of Attorney deed dated 14/08/2024
executed by P. Prashanth Rao at the Embassy of India, Doha, Qatar, is
concerned, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial
Court.
12.In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Trial
Court warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
13.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed .
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30/10/2026
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
R.POORNIMA.,J
er

To,
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.
2.The Section Officer, VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
CRP(MD)Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2026
30/10/2026
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:07 pm )