{"id":69731,"date":"2005-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005"},"modified":"2016-05-12T09:44:56","modified_gmt":"2016-05-12T04:14:56","slug":"gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 01\/03\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU     \n\nSecond Appeal  No. 249 of 1994 \nand \nSecond Appeal No.288 of 1994  \n\nGurumani Vinayagar Temple and   \nKannanur Mariamman Temple,    \nby its fit Person at\nKodikalkuppam Village, \nVandipalayam, \nCuddalore Taluk                 ..Appellant in both Appeals\n\n-vs-\n\nSomu                                           ..Respondent in S.A.249\/1994<\/pre>\n
Selvaraj                                        ..Respondent in S.A.288\/1994<\/p>\n
        Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against
\nthe common judgment and decrees dated 28.08.1992 in A.S.No.146 and 144 of 1991
\nrespectively on the file of Additional Sub  Court,  Cuddalore,  reversing  the
\njudgment  and  decree  dated  09.04.1991  in O.S.No.890 of 1987 on the file of
\nAdditional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant :  Ms.P.V.Rajeswari<\/p>\n
^For Respondents :  Mr.R.Subramanian  <\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT       <\/p>\n
        These  Second  Appeals  are  directed  against  the  decrees  of   the
\nAdditional  Sub  Court,  Cuddalore,  dated  28.08.1992 in a common judgment in
\nA.S.144 of 1991 preferred by 1st defendant and A.S.146 of  1991  preferred  by
\n2nd  defendant  in  respect  of  the  decree passed by the Additional District
\nMunsif, Cuddalore on 09.04.1991 in O.S.890 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  While admitting the  Second  Appeals,  the  following  substantial
\nquestions of law were framed:\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Is not the judgment of the lower Appellate Court hit by the principles of
\nres judicata based on Exs.A-1 to A-5 ?\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whether  the  first  defendant  is  estopped  from  re-opening  the  point
\nregarding the title to the suit properties once again ?
\n(3)  Whether  the lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in reversing
\nthe well considered judgment of the trial Court on unsustainable grounds ?\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The suit was filed by  the  appellant\/plaintiff  for  recovery  of
\npossession of the suit properties consisting of five items of lands situate at
\nKodikalkuppam Village within Cuddalore Municipality limits.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   There  were  earlier  proceedings  regarding the suit properties.
\nRegarding the said properties, there was an endowment created  under  a  Will.
\nThat Will  was  executed  by one Rathnam Pillai on 25.07.1903.  That endowment
\ncreated certain obligations to be performed in  favour  of  the  idol  of  the
\nplaintiff  temple and the right of management was vested with the heirs of the
\nsaid Rathnam Pillai.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Somasundaram Pillai, the son of Rathinam Pillai had filed  a  suit
\nin O.S.92  of  1961  claiming  hereditary trustee of the appellant temple.  In
\nthat suit, this Will dated  25.07.1903  by  Rathnam  Pillai  was  marked  with
\nconsent  of the Commissioner of HR & CE, who was also a party in that suit, as
\nEx.A-2 and the Division Bench of this Court, while  dealing  with  the  appeal
\npreferred  by  Somasundaram  Pillai  in Appeal No.297 of 1963, the copy of the
\njudgment of which was marked as Ex.B-1 , made the following observation;
\n“We may also add that  the  fact  the  plaintiff’s  claim  to  the  hereditary
\ntrusteeship of the temples has been negatived, does not affect his right to be
\nthe trustee  of  the  endowment.    Under the powers conferred by the document
\nExhibit A-2, the plaintiff will be entitled to be in possession and management
\nof the properties and utilise the income of the  properties  as  specified  in
\nExhibit A-2”.\n<\/p>\n
Anyway  Somasundaram  Pillai  could  not  succeed  in his claim for hereditary
\ntrusteeship.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Somasundaram Pillai again filed a suit in  O.S.2357  of  1981  for
\ndeclaration  of  his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the same
\nproperties.  In that suit also, the Will was a subject matter and an issue was
\nalso framed and it was held that the Will has  not  been  proved;  the  appeal
\nproceedings were  all  dismissed.    The  connected  documents  were marked as
\nExs.A-1 to A-5.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Counsel for the appellant \/ plaintiff contended that the  findings
\nin  O.S.2357  of  1981 will operate as res judicata against the 1st defendant,
\nwho is none else than the son  of  Somasundaram  Pillai.    True  it  is  that
\nproperties  are  the  same  in  both this suit as well as in O.S.2357 of 1981.
\nAlthough the parties are not exactly the same inasmuch as Commissioner was the
\nparty to the earlier proceedings representing the interest  of  the  plaintiff
\ntemple  and since Selvaraj is none but the son of Somasundaram Pillai, who was
\nactually agitating against this plaintiff temple, we can hold that the parties
\nare also same.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Counsel also relied upon the decision  reported  in  C.V.RAJENDRAN
\nAND  ANOTHER  ..vs..N.M.MUHAMMED  KUNHI  (2002  (5)  CTC  612), wherein it was
\nmentioned that
\n“principle of res judicata applies as between two stages in same litigation so
\nthat if issue had been decided at earlier stage against party,  it  cannot  be
\nallowed  to  be  re-agitated  by  him  at  subsequent  stage  in  same suit or
\nproceedings”.\n<\/p>\n
By relying upon  the  same,  it  has  been  submitted  that  the  present  1st
\nrespondent  Selvaraj,  who  is none but the son of Somasundaram Pillai and who
\nclaims under Somasundaram Pillai, cannot be allowed to  reagitate  the  issue,
\nthat was  finally  decided  in  O.S.2357  of  1981.    This  argument  will be
\nacceptable only if it is found that the issue in that suit is the same as that
\nin the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Here, we are not concerned about the ownership of suit lands as to
\nwhether it vests with the appellant \/ plaintiff temple or otherwise.  True  it
\nis that the claim of predecessor of 1st defendant namely, Somasundaram Pillai,
\nfor  exclusive  right and title in suit properties made in the earlier suit in
\nO.S.2357 of 1981 was dismissed.  But the said Selvaraj, the respondent  \/  1st
\ndefendant  resists  this  case  not  upon  the  basis of his title to the suit
\nproperties, but he resists by contending that the heirs of Rathnam Pillai, the
\ntestator of the Will of the year 1903, has got a right of possession and right
\nof management over the suit properties.  This has been fortified by the  Will,
\nwhich has been marked before the first appellate court as Ex.B-4.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   It  is  worth-mentioning  that  there  is  an observation by the
\nDivision Bench of this Court in A.S.297 of 1963 by relying  upon  the  present
\nEx.B-4  Will, which was marked as Ex.A-2 in that proceedings and that the same
\nwas marked by consent and according to their observation, Somasundaram Pillai,
\nthe father of present respondent\/1st defendant had right to be  in  possession
\nand  management  of  the suit properties, which were endowed by Rathnam Pillai<\/p>\n
under hi s Will of 1903 with the specific directions that the said obligations
\nshould be performed by his heirs towards  idol  of  the  appellant\/  plaintiff
\ntemple.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  It is this right of management of the appellant\/ plaintiff can as
\nwell  be  recognised, despite the applicability or nonapplicability of Section
\n11 C.P.C.  In this connection, the position of law has been laid as follows in
\nK.M.Rathinam Nadar and another ..vs..  Arulmigu Hanumantharayar Bhajanai Madam
\n@ Hanumar Kovil rep.by its hereditary trustee Tmt.L.Padmavathiammal (1996 TLNJ
\n131 at page 138).\n<\/p>\n
The above judgment of the Supreme Court places the matter beyond doubt.   Even
\nif  the judgment of this Court in the prior proceedings cannot be treated as a
\njudgment in rem, it can certainly be treated as a  precedent  inasmuch  as  it
\ndecides the  character  of  a  temple.  It should be noticed that the question
\nwhether a temple is a private or a  public  one  is  essentially  between  the
\npersons  who  claim  it  to  be  private  temple  and the Hindus Religious and
\nCharitable Endowments Department.  Once as between hem the said  question  has
\nbeen  decided  one  way  or  other, that should be treated as a precedent in a
\nsubsequent case if the question arises between some third parties and  one  of
\nthe parties to the earlier proceeding”.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Thus  it is made clear that respondent \/ 1st defendant has got a
\nright of management and right of possession and that is why he has been issued
\nwith patta under Ex.B-2 in 1970 and he had also entered into tenancy with  2nd
\ndefendant under Ex.B-3.  Unless the appellant\/ plaintiff shows a better title,
\nthe appellant may not be entitled for recovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   As  mentioned  supra,  the issue in first round of litigation in
\nO.S.92 of 1961 was that of the hereditary trusteeship of Somasundaram  Pillai.
\nThe  issue  in  the  second  round  of  litigation in O.S.2357 of 1 981 was in
\nrespect of the exclusive right and title of Somasundaram Pillai  who  is  none
\nbut the  father of the respondent \/ 1st defendant.  But the issue in this suit
\nis the plaintiff’s title on the suit land in one side and the right to  be  in
\npossession of the respondents \/ defendants in the suit land.  When it has been
\nestablished  that  the respondents do have such a right of possession and when
\nit was found that there was no better  right  clothed  upon  the  appellant  \/
\nplaintiff, the  latter  should  be non-suited.  Thus, the questions of law are
\nanswered against the appellant \/ plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Second Appeals are dismissed and the judgment and decree  of  the
\nfirst appellate Court are confirmed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
gl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1) The Additional Subordinate Judge,
\nCuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Additional District Munsif,
\nCuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
The Record Keeper,
\nV.R.Section,
\nHigh Court,Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 01\/03\/2005 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU Second Appeal No. 249 of 1994 and Second Appeal No.288 of 1994 Gurumani Vinayagar Temple and Kannanur Mariamman Temple, by its fit Person at Kodikalkuppam Village, […]<\/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-69731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-12T04:14:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T04:14:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1452,\"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\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\",\"name\":\"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T04:14:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-12T04:14:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T04:14:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005"},"wordCount":1452,"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\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005","name":"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T04:14:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurumani-vinayagar-temple-and-vs-somu-on-1-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurumani Vinayagar Temple And vs Somu on 1 March, 2005"}]},{"@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\/69731","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=69731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}