{"id":248658,"date":"2009-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-16T15:46:27","modified_gmt":"2017-10-16T10:16:27","slug":"the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nA.S.No.70 of 1996\n\nThe Idol of Sri Selvamuthu\nMariamman through its\nExecutive Officer,\n'C' Type, Ponmalai,\nTiruchi District            ... Appellant\/Plaintiff\t\t\t\n\nVs.\n\nUnion of India,\nrep. by General Manager,\nSouthern Railways,\nPark Town,\nMadras-600 003.             ... Respondent\/Defendant\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the\njudgment and decree dated 26.08.1992 made in O.S.No.696 of 1984, on the file of\nFirst Additional Sub Court, Tiruchi.\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.R.Subramanian\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.S.Manohar\n                     standing Counsel\n                      for Railways\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThe plaintiff is the appellant.  The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery<br \/>\nof possession and for future mense profit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a public religious<br \/>\ninstitution and the plaintiff temple was constructed on the land belonging to<br \/>\nthe defendant and a Kalyanamandapam was also constructed in the open space by<br \/>\ncollecting contributions from the public and the temple was administrated by the<br \/>\na Committee of persons consisting of Railway employees and outsiders.  The<br \/>\nKalyanamandapam was used for conducting festivals of the temple and on other<br \/>\ndays it was let out for marriage functions and the defendant did not object to<br \/>\nthe construction of the Kalyanamandapam and dispute arose among the members of<br \/>\nthe Committee and therefore, the Management of the temple was taken over by the<br \/>\nHR &amp; CE Department, the possession of temple was handed over and thereafter the<br \/>\npossession of the Kalyanamandapam was also handed over to the defendant by the<br \/>\nExecutive Officer and it was submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to<br \/>\npossession of the Kalyanamandapam with movables stated in &#8216;B&#8217; schedule of the<br \/>\nplaint and therefore, the suit is filed for the recovery of possession of &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nschedule property, which is the superstructure known as &#8216;Kalyanamandam&#8217; and for<br \/>\nthe delivery of &#8216;B&#8217; schedule properties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3.The defendant in the written statement claimed ownership over the temple<br \/>\nas well as the Kalyanamandapam and denied the allegations of the plaintiff that<br \/>\nthe Kalyanamandapam was constructed by the public by raising contributions from<br \/>\nthe public.  The defendant further contended that the plaintiff is not entitled<br \/>\nto the reliefs as prayed for as they are not the owner of the Kalyanamandapam.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4.The plaintiff examined two witnesses and marked 18 documents and the<br \/>\ndefendant marked 5 documents and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he<br \/>\nsubmitted his report and plan, which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5.On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial Judge<br \/>\nframed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t1.Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t2.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t4.Whether the plaint has been properly valued  and proper court fee has<br \/>\nbeen paid?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t5.Whether the suit is bad for want of Section 80 C.P.C notice?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t6.Whether the plaintiff has cause of action?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t7.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">and an Additional issue was framed to the effect whether the Kalyanamandapam<br \/>\nbelongs to the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t6.The learned trial Judge, while analyzing issue No.2 held that as per<br \/>\norder dated 23.03.1991 the Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to try the<br \/>\ncase.  Having decided that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, the<br \/>\ntrial Judge should not have given finding on the other issues and ought to have<br \/>\ndismissed the suit on that ground.  Nevertheless, the trial Judge has chosen to<br \/>\ngive findings on all the issues and found all issues against the appellant<br \/>\nexcept the issue No.4 regarding the valuation of court fee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t7.The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the<br \/>\nKalyanamandapam is the property of the Appellant and they are entitled to the<br \/>\npossession?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t8.In this appeal, the appellant contended that the trial Court having held<br \/>\nthat it has no jurisdiction and the suit is not maintainable for want of Section<br \/>\n80 C.P.C. notice should not have given finding on other issues and ought to be<br \/>\ndismissed the suit on those two issues. While answering Issue No.5 regarding<br \/>\nSection 80 C.P.C. notice, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe respondent that there was no urgency for filing the suit and according to<br \/>\nthe plaintiff, the possession of Kalyanamandapam was taken from them in the year<br \/>\n1982 and the suit was filed only on 11.07.1984 viz., more than two years after<br \/>\ntaking over the properties of the respondent\/defendant and hence, there was no<br \/>\nurgency as pleaded by the appellant for filing the suit without Section 80<br \/>\nC.P.C. notice and though the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. notice was dispensed<br \/>\nwith by the Court, it was without notice to the respondent\/defendant and<br \/>\ntherefore, they are not bound by the above order and the suit was not<br \/>\nmaintainable as statutory notice under Section 80 C.P.C was not given to them.<br \/>\nThe learned Sub Judge also agreed with the contention of the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent and gave a finding against the plaintiff on that<br \/>\nissue. In my opinion , having allowed the parties to contest the suit by<br \/>\nadducing oral and documentary evidence, it would be traversy of justice if the<br \/>\nsuit is dismissed on that ground for want of Section 80 C.P.C notice.<br \/>\nTherefore, in my opinion, though the statutory notice was not given, having<br \/>\nregard to the subsequent events by allowing parties to contest the suit on<br \/>\nmerits, the Court should not have dismissed the suit on the ground of want of<br \/>\nnotice.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t9.The learned trial Judge has considered the Additional Issue No.1 viz.<br \/>\nwhether the Kalyanamandapam belongs to the plaintiff, elaborately discussed the<br \/>\noral and documentary evidence, has found that the Kalyanamandapam belongs to the<br \/>\nrespondent\/defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled to it.  A perusal of the<br \/>\nplaint would also make it clear that the Kalyanamandapam is the property of the<br \/>\ndefendant. Admittedly, the land belongs to the respondent and after getting the<br \/>\npermission from the respondent, the temple was constructed and the temple was<br \/>\nadministrated and managed by a Committee of persons consisting of Railway<br \/>\nofficials and outsiders.  In a portion of the temple a Kalyanamandapam was<br \/>\nconstructed and though it was contended by the appellant that the Mandapam was<br \/>\nconstructed by raising donations and contributions from the public, no document<br \/>\nhas been produced by the plaintiff to substantiate the same.  Ex.A8 is the<br \/>\nresolution of the Committee of Trustees of the temple and it is stated that the<br \/>\n&#8216;Hundial&#8217; will be opened for the Mandapam expenses.  Ex.A10 is the letter issued<br \/>\nby the respondent\/defendant to the President of the temple demanding a nominal<br \/>\nrent for the building.  Ex.A18 is another letter by the respondent stating that<br \/>\nsanction has been accorded at the request of the Executive Officer of the temple<br \/>\nfor allowing the Kalyanamandapam for conducting &#8216;Navarathiri pooja&#8217; for a period<br \/>\nof 20 days and rent was also fixed.  Exs.A17, 18 and 19 were the letters by<br \/>\nwhich the Kalyanamadapam was handed over to the appellant, for conducting<br \/>\n&#8216;poojas&#8217; by the respondent.  These documents would prove that the<br \/>\nKalyanamandapam was under the control of the respondent and the appellant after<br \/>\ngetting necessary permission from the respondent and after paying the rent used<br \/>\nthe Kalyanamandapam and therefore, I hold that the respondent is the owner of<br \/>\nthe Kalyanamandapuam and the plaintiff is not the owner of the Kalyanamandapam.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t10.In my opinion, the suit as framed is not maintainable. In the schedule<br \/>\nproperty, the superstructure has been mentioned and the appellant wanted to<br \/>\nrecover the possession of the superstructure of Kalyanamandapam and there is no<br \/>\nprayer for the recovery of the land in which the superstructure was constructed.<br \/>\nAs stated supra, the land on which Kalyanamandapam was constructed belongs to<br \/>\nthe respondent and it is admitted in the plaint in para 11 that the Committee<br \/>\nmembers, who were aggrieved at the appointment of the Executive Officer, in<br \/>\ncollusion with the defendant appeared to have handed over possession of the<br \/>\nKalyanamandapam with movables.  Therefore, even according to the plaint, it was<br \/>\nnot their case that by force Kalyanamandapam was taken over by the<br \/>\nrespondent\/defendant and the Kalyanamandapam was handed over by the Committee<br \/>\nmembers to the respondent\/defendant. The respondent\/defendant is the owner of<br \/>\nthe land and Kalyanamandapam, therefore, he is entitled to get the possession of<br \/>\nthe Kalyanamandapam from the persons, who were allowed to use the<br \/>\nKalyanamandapam.  Therefore, in the absence of any right, the plaintiff is not<br \/>\nentitled to claim recovery of possession of the Kalyanamandapam and therefore,<br \/>\non that ground the suit as framed is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not<br \/>\nentitled to the relief of recovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t11.Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court and the decree and judgment of the trial Court is<br \/>\nconfirmed and the appeal is dismissed without costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">er<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>The I Additional Sub Court,<br \/>\nTiruchi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S.No.70 of 1996 The Idol of Sri Selvamuthu Mariamman through its Executive Officer, &#8216;C&#8217; Type, Ponmalai, Tiruchi District &#8230; Appellant\/Plaintiff Vs. Union of India, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-16T10:16:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-16T10:16:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1418,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\",\"name\":\"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-16T10:16:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-16T10:16:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-16T10:16:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009"},"wordCount":1418,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009","name":"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-16T10:16:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-idol-of-sri-selvamuthu-vs-union-of-india-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Idol Of Sri Selvamuthu vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=248658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}