R ANAND Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions have been filed to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner and his agnates to perform the temple festival for Arulmigu Sri Angalamman Thirukkovil with adequate police protection.

(2.) Challenging the impugned order dated 06.02.2015 the present writ petition has been filed stating that Arulmigu Sri Angalamman Thirukkovil in Johnson Nagar, Salem is constructed by one Marimuthu, who is great grand father of 'A' party and 'B' party, the petitioners and the respondents. The said Marimuthu was having 3 sons, namely Mariappan, Muthu and Kulandaivelu. The said Kulandaivelu is having one son Ponnusamy and he died 10 years prior to the death of Kolandiavelu. His wife and children are available. Now the dispute is between the legal heirs of Mariappan and Muthu. It is an admitted fact that Mariappan died in the year 1984. After the death of Mariappan, till the death of Muthu in the year 2010, all the legal heirs of Mariappan and Muthu joined together and performed the festival jointly. But after the death of Muthu, the legal heirs of Mariappan, one Indirani and Angamuthu filed the suit in O.S.No.152 of 2009 against his own brothers Angamuthu and Raju for declaration that the plaintiffs are pangaligal of the said temple Arulmigu Sri Angalamman Thirukkovil at No.3, Johnson Nagar, Salem and restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs and their family in participating in the temple festival celebration permanently. Though the suit has been dismissed for default. subsequently, the children of Mariappan filed the suit in O.S.No.196 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to do poojas, conduct festivals in the ensuing Tamil Masi ammavasai on 04.03.2011 and alternatively in the subsequent years and manage the affairs of the temple in the same manner and permanently restraining the defendants 1 to 6 and their men from in any way preventing the plaintiffs from doing poojas, conducting festivals in the ensuing Tamil Masi Amavasai on 04.03.2011 and alternatively in the subsequent years and manage the affairs of the temple and for costs. It is also an admitted fact that the said suit in O.S.No.196 of 2011 has been decreed exparte. It is also admitted that subsequently, that exparte decree has been set aside and the said suit is pending. During the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.196 of 2011, on the complaint given by Indirani, a case in Crime Number 116 of 2013 under section 107 Cr.P.C. has been registered and the first respondent conducted enquiry and passed an order that since in 2014, the petitioners Raju and others have performed the pooja, in 2015 Indirani and others are permitted to perform pooja and next year Raju and others are permitted to perform pooja.

(3.) At this juncture, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.3141 of 2015 for direction to permit the petitioner to perform temple festival from 1.02.2015 to 20.2.2015 and for providing adequate police protection. On 16.2.2015, the present impugned order has been passed and that has been challenged in W.P.No.3857 of 2015 stating that merely on the basis of the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.196 of 2011, the second respondent has passed the order and hence he prayed for setting aside the same.