Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 07-05-2019 in case of petitioner name Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman vs Tamilarasi (Dead) By LRs
| |

Supreme Court Remands High Court Decision in Temple Eviction Case

The case of Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil vs. Tamilarasi (Dead) By LRs revolves around a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant from temple-owned property. The Supreme Court ruled that the Madras High Court had erred in deciding the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law, as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court remanded the case for fresh consideration.

The case arose when the appellant temple sought eviction of the respondent from the suit property. The trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the temple, but the High Court, in second appeal, reversed these decisions. The Supreme Court, finding procedural irregularities, set aside the High Court’s ruling and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil, is a temple in Tamil Nadu. The temple management filed a suit for eviction against the respondent, Tamilarasi, alleging unauthorized occupation of the temple’s property.

The trial court, after considering the evidence, ruled in favor of the temple, ordering eviction. The respondent appealed to the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, who upheld the trial court’s judgment. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court.

The High Court, in its judgment dated September 30, 2011, allowed the second appeal and dismissed the eviction suit. The temple management, dissatisfied with the reversal, approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The temple management, represented by its legal counsel, argued:

  • The High Court failed to frame a substantial question of law while admitting the second appeal, violating Section 100 CPC.
  • The eviction order was legally valid, as the respondent was occupying temple land without authority.
  • The trial and first appellate courts had correctly examined the facts and law, and their findings should not have been overturned without valid legal grounds.
  • The High Court had framed substantial questions of law only while delivering the final judgment, which was procedurally improper.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, represented by their legal counsel, countered:

  • The High Court had the authority to decide the case based on existing legal principles, even if substantial questions of law were not framed at admission.
  • The eviction suit was not maintainable, as the temple had failed to prove that the respondent was an unauthorized occupant.
  • The High Court correctly ruled in favor of the respondent after re-examining the facts and legal aspects.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had adhered to the mandatory procedure under Section 100 CPC in deciding the second appeal. Key legal observations included:

  • Under Section 100(4) CPC, a High Court must frame a substantial question of law while admitting a second appeal.
  • In this case, the High Court formulated questions of law only in its final judgment, which was contrary to procedural requirements.
  • The power to frame additional substantial questions of law under Section 100(5) CPC must be exercised by recording reasons, which was not done in this case.
  • The failure to frame substantial questions of law at admission rendered the High Court’s decision procedurally flawed.

Key Judicial Findings

The Supreme Court ruled:

  • The High Court’s judgment was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 100 CPC.
  • The case was remanded to the Madras High Court for fresh adjudication.
  • The High Court must frame substantial questions of law at the admission stage, if any exist, and decide the appeal accordingly.
  • No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
  • The High Court was directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the case within six months.

Conclusion and Impact

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the procedural mandate under Section 100 CPC for deciding second appeals. The judgment ensures that appellate courts follow due process, thereby upholding judicial discipline.

This decision clarifies that High Courts cannot bypass the requirement of framing substantial questions of law at admission and then decide the appeal based on issues raised for the first time in the final judgment. The ruling provides clarity for future second appeals, ensuring adherence to procedural law.


Petitioner Name: Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil.
Respondent Name: Tamilarasi (Dead) By LRs.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 07-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Arulmighu Nellukadai vs Tamilarasi (Dead) By Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts