1 and 2 party shall hold, possess and enjoy the rent and income derived from the C Schedule property.
In respect of the properties in question, it was averred No.
He died on or about 10.04.1973.
128 of 1991, questioning the framing of scheme.
Several orders have been passed by this Court from time to time.
62 of 1991, affirming a judgment and decree dated 28.01.1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in A.S. No.
It is number in dispute that after the death of Lakshmanan Chettiar, Chellam had been acting as a Pujari as also a trustee for a period of sixteen months and Shanmugam and his sons had been managing the said properties for a period of eight months.
Shanmugam also appears to have executed a will in favour of his sons.
375 of 1944 dated 15.04.1944 the bronze Soodam, thattu with Kalias referred tol in the same page of the written statement.
106 of 1995 as against the finding that Respondent No.
83 of 1982, inter alia, praying for a declaration that Respondent No.1 herein was number the legal heir of Chellam Subbiah.
A private family temple known as Pechiamman Temple was founded by one Palanichamy Chettiar.
661 of 1979, to which we shall advert a little later.
For framing a scheme in respect of the said properties, a suit was filed by the appellants against the said Thangam and others, which was marked as S. No.222 of 1975.
This Court in a companytempt proceeding initiated by Respondent No.
2 to 4 on the other, they would be managing and administering the temple for a period of 2 years i.e. one year each.
9 of 1943.
The said amount shall be put in a fixed deposit in the name of the temple and the Managing Trustee would be entitled to withdraw only interest thereof.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 13.03.1986, an appeal came to be preferred by the appellants herein, which was marked as A.S. No.1363 of 1988.
The said decree has attained finality, pursuant whereto the branch of Shanmugam became entitled to a right of term of management for a period of two years.
He also preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against that part of the finding of the learned Single Judge that the will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar was number valid in law.
106 of 1995 or dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal arising out of A.S. No.
While holding the will to be number valid in law, a scheme was directed to be framed in respect of the management of the said properties.
1 was the son of Chellam Subhiah.
1 to hand over the possession of the temple in question to the applicant herein on 11th December, 2004 at 11.00 a.m. in the presence of the bailiff of the companyrt of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai who will take inventory of the movables in the temple and the same shall be signed by the applicant herein as well as the 1st respondent in the appeal.
An appeal was preferred there against, which was marked as A.S. No.
A Letters Patent Appeal being No.
Validity of the said will dated 24.05.1962 was put in question.
550 of 2004, directed Without going into the allegations and companynter allegations made in the companytempt petition, we direct respondent No.
It was agreed that Lakshmanan Chettiar himself shall hold the posts of pujari as well as trustee for two years, whereas his two sons shall hold the same for a period of eight months each.
661 of 1979.
Appellants herein also preferred a cross objection, which was marked as Cross Objection No.
The said suit was decreed, relevant portion whereof reads as under Clause iii That the C schedule properties be managed in turns between the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant on the one hand and Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 on the other, each branch for a period of two years.
The 1st respondent will also deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/ within four weeks from today.
The companypliance in this regard shall be intimated to this Court in the 1st week of January, 2005.
1 was the son of Chellam was also number seriously disputed.
The finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that Respondent No.
It was accepted before the Division Bench that the scheme framed pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge was working satisfactorily and numberinterference therein was called for.
However, after the death of Chellam, the sons of Shanmugam filed a suit, which was marked as O.S. No.
The learned Principal Subordinate Judge while holding Respondent No.1 to be the son of Chellam, also upheld the validity of the said will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar.
The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the said suit by a judgment and order dated 19.02.1979.
1 herein, aggrieved by the direction to frame a scheme.
Disputes and differences having been arisen between the two branches of the family, Thangam son of Shanmugam filed a suit, which was marked as O.S. No.
Clause iv That the said two branches also be in possession during their term of management of the temple jewels mentioned as items 1 to 6 at page 13 of the first Defendants written statement specified hereunder in addition to amend as per order in I.A. No.
The appeals and the cross objection were heard together.
B. SINHA, J Whether right to manage a temple and or shebaitship can be a subject matter of testamentary succession is the question involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and decree dated 09.08.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in L.P.A. No.
61 of 1991 was filed by Respondent No.
Both the appeals were heard together by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
4 herein also preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was marked as P.A. No.
On or about 04.07.1956, L.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar and his two sons, however, entered into a partition deed for division of their properties including the terms of management of the suit temple and its properties.
The genealogical table of the said Palanichamy Chettiar is as under PALANICHAMI CHETTIAR P. Lakshmanan Chettiar Shanmugam Palanichami Chettiar Thangam Palanichami Chettiar Shanmugam Chellam Subbiah Palanichami Chettiar Died Ramalingam S. Mariappan Rathinam Lakshmanan Chellam Subbiah Patchaimuthu Shanmugham Kuppumuthu Died Palanisami The founder of the trust dedicated properties for the maintenance of the temple and performance of Pujas companysisting of four shop rooms in the front and a few residential buildings at the back of the temple.
4, which was marked as Contempt Petition No.
661 of 1979.
Chellam died on 10.02.1980, leaving behind Respondent No.1 herein as his heir and legal representative.
Lakshmanan Chettiar executed a will on or about 24.05.1962 bequeathing his share in favour of his son Chellam.
