Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1407
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1926/2010
SIVANMALAI SUBRAMANIASWAMY DEVASTHANAM
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER (DEAD)
BY LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2009 passed by
the High Court in Second Appeal No.732/1996, the defendants in
O.S. No.84/1990 have preferred this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that there were certain
proceedings which were initiated under the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act,
1963 which resulted in orders in favour of the appellant
herein. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents herein
to file a suit seeking appropriate reliefs by the High
Court, as an Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 22.09.1989.
3. On the strength of the said liberty, the respondents
herein preferred O.S. No.84/1990 before the sub-court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.10
11:20:01 IST
Reason:
1
Dharapuram and sought the reliefs of declaration of title as
well as permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed by
the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 11.01.1994.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the
respondents/plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal before the
learned District Judge at Erode and the said First Appeal was
also dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal No.732 of 1996 was
preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs before the High Court
by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). The
Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
“9. At the time of admission of the second appeal the
following substantial questions of law were framed.
i) Whether the Court below has misinterpreted the
provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of Minor Inams
Abolition Act, 1963?
ii) Whether the Court below ought to have sent that
provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Abolition Act would
apply only when there is a grant of both warams to the
religious institutions?”
Further, after hearing the learned senior counsel for the
appellant(s), another additional question of law was framed,
which reads as under:
“Whether the claim of the appellants is barred by res-
judicata under Section 43 of the Minor Inams Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963?
2
5. On considering the aforesaid substantial question of law,
the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court as well as of the First Appellate Court and allowed the
Second Appeal. Consequently, the suit filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant
and learned senior counsel for the respondents. We have perused
the impugned judgment and the material on record.
7. During the course of submissions, Sri V. Prabhakar,
learned senior counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
High Court was not right in formulating the aforesaid
substantial questions of law. It was contended that the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC is
unique and to be exercised only on correct and appropriate
substantial questions of law to be formulated at the time of
admission of the Second Appeal. In other words, in the absence
of there being any substantial questions of law which arise in
the Second Appeal, the same ought to be simply dismissed at the
time of admission itself. But here is a case where the High
Court admitted the Second Appeal but the appropriate questions
of law were not at all raised inasmuch as according to the
learned senior counsel for the appellant, the aforesaid
questions did not arise at all. This is because once there is a
culmination of the proceedings under the provisions of the
3
Act, no further controversy on those proceedings could be
raised by way of filing of a civil suit, therefore, the High
Court in exercise of its appellate statutory jurisdiction while
granting the patta in favour of the appellant herein reserved
liberty to the respondents/ plaintiffs to seek reliefs
otherwise than arising under the provisions of the Act.
However, the High Court has raised substantial questions of law
only under the provisions of the Act, which are wholly
inappropriate. It was the submission of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the Second Appeal ought to have
been dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the
aforesaid substantial questions of law which are erroneously
raised has resulted in an erroneous judgment and decree in the
Second Appeal. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree may be
set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs may
be dismissed as there is no substantial question of law that
would arise in the case.
8. Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree and
contended that the High Court had rightly raised the aforesaid
substantial questions of law which have been answered correctly
and there is no merit in this appeal. It was contended that
both the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court were not right in dismissing the suit filed by
4
the respondents/ plaintiffs and not granting the reliefs of
declaration of title and permanent injunction although the
respondents/plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land
for several decades. Therefore, the findings on fact arrived at
by the Courts below were not just and proper and the dismissal
of the suit was incorrect. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in answering the substantial questions of law in
favour of the respondents and thereby decreeing the suit. It
was contended that there is no merit in this appeal.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
senior counsel for the respective parties and we have
considered the same in a juxtaposition with the impugned
judgment and decree. In paragraph 9 as already noted, the
substantial questions of law have been raised. It is necessary
to mention that the High Court in exercise of its statutory
appellate jurisdiction had reserved liberty to the
respondents/plaintiffs to seek appropriate reliefs by filing a
suit only after granting a patta and holding in favour of the
appellant herein. Therefore, the question of reconsideration of
those issues in the suit did not arise at all. No doubt,
liberty was reserved by the High Court to the
respondents/Plaintiffs to seek appropriate reliefs but de hors
the orders which were passed by the High Court while granting
the patta to the appellant herein.
5
10. We find that the High Court was not right in raising the
aforesaid substantial questions of law besides under the
provisions of the Act. They were not on the basis of what would
have emerged on a reading of the judgment of the Trial Court
which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. In the
circumstances, we find that the High Court was not right in
raising the aforesaid substantial questions of law. If that is
so, we find that the impugned judgment and decree ought to be
set aside and the matter ought to be remanded to the High Court
so as to enable the High Court to raise the appropriate
substantial questions of law by restoring the Second Appeal
No.732 of 1996 on the file of the High Court. On such
restoration being made, the High Court shall now consider the
case of the respondents/plaintiffs for admission and if it so
finds, raise appropriate substantial questions of law and
dispose of the Second Appeal in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed
and disposed of without any order as to costs.
12. Since the Second Appeal is of the year 1996, we direct
the parties who are represented by their respective counsel to
appear before the High Court on 17.12.2025 without expecting
any separate notices from the said High Court.
6
13. It is needless to observe that the Registry of the High
Court shall list the Second Appeal before the appropriate
Roster Bench on the said date and the matter shall be disposed
of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period
of four months from 17.12.2025.
14. Since we have restored the Second Appeal No.732/1996 on
the file of Madras High Court, consequently interim order, if
any, in the said Second Appeal shall revive and continue
pending disposal of the appeal.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 26, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1926/2010
SIVANMALAI SUBRAMANISWAMY DEVASTHANAM
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Appellant(s)
VERSUS
S. MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER (DEAD)
BY LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 26-11-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv.
Mr. N.j. Ramchandar, Adv.
Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Om Prakash, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C. Prakasam, Adv.
Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv.
Ms. A. Rithikha, Adv.
Ms. Kanimozhi J, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the
signed non-reportable judgment.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
8
2025 INSC 1407
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1926/2010
SIVANMALAI SUBRAMANIASWAMY DEVASTHANAM
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER (DEAD)
BY LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2009 passed by
the High Court in Second Appeal No.732/1996, the defendants in
O.S. No.84/1990 have preferred this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that there were certain
proceedings which were initiated under the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act,
1963 which resulted in orders in favour of the appellant
herein. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents herein
to file a suit seeking appropriate reliefs by the High
Court, as an Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 22.09.1989.
3. On the strength of the said liberty, the respondents
herein preferred O.S. No.84/1990 before the sub-court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.10
11:20:01 IST
Reason:
1
Dharapuram and sought the reliefs of declaration of title as
well as permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed by
the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 11.01.1994.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the
respondents/plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal before the
learned District Judge at Erode and the said First Appeal was
also dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal No.732 of 1996 was
preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs before the High Court
by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). The
Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
“9. At the time of admission of the second appeal the
following substantial questions of law were framed.
i) Whether the Court below has misinterpreted the
provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of Minor Inams
Abolition Act, 1963?
ii) Whether the Court below ought to have sent that
provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Abolition Act would
apply only when there is a grant of both warams to the
religious institutions?”
Further, after hearing the learned senior counsel for the
appellant(s), another additional question of law was framed,
which reads as under:
“Whether the claim of the appellants is barred by res-
judicata under Section 43 of the Minor Inams Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963?
2
5. On considering the aforesaid substantial question of law,
the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court as well as of the First Appellate Court and allowed the
Second Appeal. Consequently, the suit filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant
and learned senior counsel for the respondents. We have perused
the impugned judgment and the material on record.
7. During the course of submissions, Sri V. Prabhakar,
learned senior counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
High Court was not right in formulating the aforesaid
substantial questions of law. It was contended that the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC is
unique and to be exercised only on correct and appropriate
substantial questions of law to be formulated at the time of
admission of the Second Appeal. In other words, in the absence
of there being any substantial questions of law which arise in
the Second Appeal, the same ought to be simply dismissed at the
time of admission itself. But here is a case where the High
Court admitted the Second Appeal but the appropriate questions
of law were not at all raised inasmuch as according to the
learned senior counsel for the appellant, the aforesaid
questions did not arise at all. This is because once there is a
culmination of the proceedings under the provisions of the
3
Act, no further controversy on those proceedings could be
raised by way of filing of a civil suit, therefore, the High
Court in exercise of its appellate statutory jurisdiction while
granting the patta in favour of the appellant herein reserved
liberty to the respondents/ plaintiffs to seek reliefs
otherwise than arising under the provisions of the Act.
However, the High Court has raised substantial questions of law
only under the provisions of the Act, which are wholly
inappropriate. It was the submission of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the Second Appeal ought to have
been dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the
aforesaid substantial questions of law which are erroneously
raised has resulted in an erroneous judgment and decree in the
Second Appeal. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree may be
set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs may
be dismissed as there is no substantial question of law that
would arise in the case.
8. Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree and
contended that the High Court had rightly raised the aforesaid
substantial questions of law which have been answered correctly
and there is no merit in this appeal. It was contended that
both the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court were not right in dismissing the suit filed by
4
the respondents/ plaintiffs and not granting the reliefs of
declaration of title and permanent injunction although the
respondents/plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land
for several decades. Therefore, the findings on fact arrived at
by the Courts below were not just and proper and the dismissal
of the suit was incorrect. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in answering the substantial questions of law in
favour of the respondents and thereby decreeing the suit. It
was contended that there is no merit in this appeal.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
senior counsel for the respective parties and we have
considered the same in a juxtaposition with the impugned
judgment and decree. In paragraph 9 as already noted, the
substantial questions of law have been raised. It is necessary
to mention that the High Court in exercise of its statutory
appellate jurisdiction had reserved liberty to the
respondents/plaintiffs to seek appropriate reliefs by filing a
suit only after granting a patta and holding in favour of the
appellant herein. Therefore, the question of reconsideration of
those issues in the suit did not arise at all. No doubt,
liberty was reserved by the High Court to the
respondents/Plaintiffs to seek appropriate reliefs but de hors
the orders which were passed by the High Court while granting
the patta to the appellant herein.
5
10. We find that the High Court was not right in raising the
aforesaid substantial questions of law besides under the
provisions of the Act. They were not on the basis of what would
have emerged on a reading of the judgment of the Trial Court
which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. In the
circumstances, we find that the High Court was not right in
raising the aforesaid substantial questions of law. If that is
so, we find that the impugned judgment and decree ought to be
set aside and the matter ought to be remanded to the High Court
so as to enable the High Court to raise the appropriate
substantial questions of law by restoring the Second Appeal
No.732 of 1996 on the file of the High Court. On such
restoration being made, the High Court shall now consider the
case of the respondents/plaintiffs for admission and if it so
finds, raise appropriate substantial questions of law and
dispose of the Second Appeal in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed
and disposed of without any order as to costs.
12. Since the Second Appeal is of the year 1996, we direct
the parties who are represented by their respective counsel to
appear before the High Court on 17.12.2025 without expecting
any separate notices from the said High Court.
6
13. It is needless to observe that the Registry of the High
Court shall list the Second Appeal before the appropriate
Roster Bench on the said date and the matter shall be disposed
of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period
of four months from 17.12.2025.
14. Since we have restored the Second Appeal No.732/1996 on
the file of Madras High Court, consequently interim order, if
any, in the said Second Appeal shall revive and continue
pending disposal of the appeal.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 26, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1926/2010
SIVANMALAI SUBRAMANISWAMY DEVASTHANAM
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Appellant(s)
VERSUS
S. MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER (DEAD)
BY LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 26-11-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv.
Mr. N.j. Ramchandar, Adv.
Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Om Prakash, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C. Prakasam, Adv.
Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv.
Ms. A. Rithikha, Adv.
Ms. Kanimozhi J, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the
signed non-reportable judgment.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
8