Civil Court Jurisdiction to Grant Injunction in Temple Title Suits Not Barred by HR&CE Act.

The petitioners claim title to various land parcels in Karur District via registered sale deeds, asserting these were originally private patta lands granted under Section 8(1) of the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963

Conversely, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department identified these lands as temple properties belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniya Swami Temple based on 1912 settlement records

Following a Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(MD)No.64 of 2018), the High Court classified the occupants as encroachers

In 2025, the High Court granted petitioners liberty to approach Civil Courts to establish title

Petitioners subsequently filed suits under Section 79(2) of the HR & CE Act along with interlocutory applications (IAs) for temporary injunctions to prevent eviction

The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petitions (CRP) seeking a direction for the timely disposal of these IAs, as the Trial Court was periodically adjourning the matters while the Department issued fresh eviction notices

1. Whether a Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for title and grant an injunction in matters involving temple properties notwithstanding the bar under the HR & CE Act

2. Whether the Trial Court should be directed to dispose of the temporary injunction applications within a stipulated time frame given the threat of imminent eviction

The court primarily applied Section 79(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which provides a non-obstante clause allowing a person claiming title to temple property to sue in a Civil Court to establish such right

It relied on the precedent *Adivaram Varthagargal Sangam, Palani v. State of Tamil Nadu*, which clarifies that while Section 78 deals with encroachers, Section 79(2) protects title-holders, meaning a Civil Court's power to grant an injunction is not barred under Section 79(3)

The court also noted the order of the Supreme Court in *P. Sivasamy v. State*, which allowed defendants in such suits to raise all pleas, including limitation

The court harmonized the Temple’s right to recover encroached property with the individuals' statutory right to establish title under Section 79(2).

It noted that while a prior Division Bench had categorized these occupants as encroachers, the Supreme Court and subsequent High Court orders explicitly permitted the filing of civil suits to adjudicate the dispute over title

The court reasoned that since the petitioners have already exercised this liberty by filing suits, the Trial Court’s failure to decide on the injunction applications (IAs) placed the petitioners at risk of physical eviction before their legal rights were determined

However, the court distinguished between bona fide title claimants and those who had already admitted the Temple’s ownership in writing; for the latter, no judicial protection was warranted

For the remaining petitioners, the court determined that the balance of convenience required a time-bound adjudication by the Trial Court to prevent the suits from becoming infructuous

It directed the Trial Court to dispose of the pending injunction applications within three months and the main suits within six months thereafter

The parties were ordered to maintain *status-quo* until the disposal of the injunction applications

The court specifically dismissed the petitions (C.R.P. Nos. 3750/2025 and 317/2026) where petitioners had previously admitted the Temple’s title in writing, and declared C.R.P. No. 396/2026 infructuous as the IA therein had already been decided

No costs were awarded