Skip to content


Sinnaswami Chetti and ors. Vs. Pannadi Palani Goundan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad779; (1925)48MLJ528
AppellantSinnaswami Chetti and ors.
RespondentPannadi Palani Goundan and ors.
Cases ReferredPalaniandi Pandaram v. Palaniappa Thevan
Excerpt:
- .....chennakalvalasu, hamlet of kolathupalayam in dharapuram taluq, coimbatore district, regarding the right of worship in a temple in that hamlet. the chetties who are the petitioners before me claim it to be a temple common to themselves and to the goundans. on the other hand, the goundans claim that the chetties were not entitled to the temple at all. they, of course, also denied the right of the chetties to perform worship in this temple. the magistrate in order to prevent a breach of the peace has taken action under section 145 of the criminal procedure code and he has found, as regards the possession of the temple itself, that it is in the exclusive possession of one palani goundan, one of the members of the goundans' party.2. it has been argued before me that this is not a case which.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Krishnan, J.

1. This case arose in connection with the probability of a breach of the peace occurring between the Chetties and the Goundans in Chennakalvalasu, hamlet of Kolathupalayam in Dharapuram Taluq, Coimbatore District, regarding the right of worship in a temple in that hamlet. The Chetties who are the petitioners before me claim it to be a temple common to themselves and to the Goundans. On the other hand, the Goundans claim that the Chetties were not entitled to the temple at all. They, of course, also denied the right of the Chetties to perform worship in this temple. The Magistrate in order to prevent a breach of the peace has taken action under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he has found, as regards the possession of the temple itself, that it is in the exclusive possession of one Palani Goundan, one of the members of the Goundans' party.

2. It has been argued before me that this is not a case which should have been dealt with under Section 145 but that it should have been dealt with under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the Chetties did not really claim possession of the temple but only the right to perform worship in that temple. The right to worship will no doubt require the right of entering into the temple; except in so far as that right was concerned there was no other dispute. The real dispute between the parties was as to the right to worship in the temple. When a dispute arises with reference to such a right as that, the proper section under which action should be taken by the Magistrate to prevent a breach of the peace is Section 147 and not Section 145. The cases in Chidambara Gurukkal v. Sengoda Goundan : AIR1915Mad84 , Kader Batcha v. Kader Batcha Rowther ILR (1905) M 237 and Muhammad Musaliar v. Kunji Chek Musaliar ILR (1887) M 323 lay down that the proper section is 147. The case cited by the other side, namely Palaniandi Pandaram v. Palaniappa Thevan 34 IC 651 is distinguishable from the present case. There the main dispute between the parties was as to the right of possession of the temple in question. In .that case the learned Judge was able to come to the conclusion that the dispute was in effect for possession of the temple and the right to perform puja therein was only a portion of the larger relief claimed; it was an ancillary relief and therefore it was held by Ayling, J., that Section 145 was the proper section applicable. Where the dispute is really as regards the possession of the temple, no doubt Section 145 would be the proper section. But in this case the dispute is not so much about the right to possession of the temple as to the right to perform worship in the temple. In such a case as that I. am of opinion that Section 147 is the proper section to be used by the Magistrate. The finding that the possession of the temple is with Palani Goundan is therefore inadequate to prevent a breach of the peace between the parties; for that finding does not prevent the Chetties from entering the temple for the purposes of worship. If the dispute still exists as regards their right to worship and it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, it ought to be put an end to by proper proceedings being taken under Section 147. I therefore allow the Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct him to take action under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, after giving due notice to the parties. Of course, if the likelihood of a breach of the peace has ceased, no action need be taken. But if it still continues, then the Magistrate will take action under Section 147. The petition is allowed and the case remanded accordingly to the Magistrate.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //