C.R.P.(MD)No.1931 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P.[PD].(MD)No.1730 of 2022 R.Pandurengan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.P.R.Renga Raj 2.Pa.G.Renkita Samy 3.G.Rengasamy 4.R.Venkitasamy 5.G.Rengasamy 6.Balagurusamy 7.R.Raman ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Consitution of India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2020 in O.S.No.408 of 2012 dated 17.11.2021 and restore the suit in O.S.No.408 of 2012 which was dismissed on 17.11.2021, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Ravichandran For R1 & R3 to R7: Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1931 of 2025 ORDER This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2020 in O.S.No.408 of 2012 dated 17.11.2021 and restore the suit in O.S.No.408 of 2012 which was dismissed on 17.11.2021, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father filed a suit in O.S.NO.408 of 2012 for declaration declaring that the petitioner's father as a hereditary Karaga Poosari of the Sri Periyandavar Kovil, Sri Kasthuri Amman Kovil and Sri Munisamy Kovil, Periyakottai Village. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner's father died on 03.12.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.118 of 2020 under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C., for impleading himself as a plaintiff in the suit. The said I.A.No.118 of 2020 was dismissed on 17.11.2021 on the ground that the petitioner has not established the case claiming hereditary Karaga Poosari of the said temples. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly prior to filing the suit, the petitioner's father and his forefathers 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1931 of 2025 performing the Pooja as a Head of Karaga Poosari of the above said temples and in the year 2002 the petitioner's father performed as Head Karaga Poosari and thereafter for 10 years no festival was conducted and hence, the village people have decided to conduct the festival in the year 2012 ignoring the petitioner's father and declaring the fourth defendant namely R.Venkitasamy, S/o.Rengasamy Naidu as Head Poosari. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's father filed a suit before the trial Court. Pending suit, the petitioner's father died in the year 2019 and in which, the petitioner is entitled to continue the suit as legal heirs of the plaintiff in the capacity of hereditaryship. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition, which is not sustainable one and prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that majority of the people living in the village are Naicker community and the said temples are private temples belonging to the Naicker community and four Pangali groups available in the village and all four pangalies joined together and performed a Aadi festival in each and every year. The petitioner's father was selected as a Head Poosari in the year 2002 and every year poosari will be selected by convene a meeting by all Pangalees Kootam and one person will be selected. The person who was 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1931 of 2025 selected earlier cannot be selected for the next year and it is only a rotation basis. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's father was selected as Head Poosari in the year 2002 and thereafter, he was not performed pooja as a head poosari. Subsequently, there was a problem to conduct the festival and after lapse of 10 years, the festival was conducted by electing the fourth defendant as Head Poosari. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's father filed a suit. Even in the suit pleadings, no document was filed before the trial Court to prove that prior to 2002 the petitioner's father or his forefathers' performed a Pooja as Head Poosari in the said temples. In the absence of any proof, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order warranting interference by this Court. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No 24.07.2025 am 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1931 of 2025 To 1.The Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.1931 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI , J. am C.R.P.(MD)No.1730 of 2022 24.07.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis