IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of property is determined by evidence of ownership and tax payments, not mere claims of construction or service.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

2. The respondent herein had filed O.S. No. 291 of 2010 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction restraining the appellant, and others claiming through him, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the respondent. The said plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.5.41 cents of land in Sy. No. 478 of Penumuru Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, including a terraced residential building and an asbestos sheet roofed church situated in the land.

3. The case of the respondent, in the plaint, was that the respondent had purchased the land in the suit schedule property under a registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2005 from the original owners and had subsequently constructed an asbestos roofed building to be used as a church and an RCC residential building as the residential quarters of the pastor of the church. The respondent had obtained electricity service connection for the church and the house and was paying electricity consumption charges to the department. The respondent had undertaken development of the property by raising various additional amenities and structures. At that stage, the appellant had approached the respondent and had requested that he should be appointed as pastor to the church of the respondent. After considering this request, the respondent had appointed the appellant as a pastor on honorary basis after obtaining an undertaking from the appellant that the appellant can be removed at any time or replaced by any other pastor at the sole discretion of the pastor A. Stephen, who was the founding president of the respondent. Though the appellant had voluntarily undertook not to claim any remuneration as services of the pastor, the respondent had been paying remuneration to the appellant, by way of an honorarium.

4. Being dissatisfied with the services performed by the appellant, the respondent, by a resolution dated 25.01 2010 had removed the appellant as pastor of the church and had appointed pastor Sammraj to run the activities of the respondent. After the appointment, pastor Sammraj took possession of the plaint schedule property including the church and the residential building and has been performing his duties as pastor. However, the appellant, taking advantage of the fact that the President and Committee members of the respondent stay at Bengaluru, had sought to evict pastor Sammraj. This attempt of the appellant was resisted by pastor Sammraj. In order to stop any further damage, the respondent had approached the trial Court by way of O.S. No. 291 of 2010.

5. The appellant filed his written statement in the suit claiming that he had been working as a pastor for 18 years in the church of Penumur and the respondent learning about the excellent work being done by the appellant had requested him to use the land purchased by the respondent to construct a church and residential quarters and to carry on his pastoral activities from the said church. Accordingly, the appellant had constructed the church building and the residential quarter with his own money and had been living in the said residential quarter. However, the president of the respondent society having developed ill-will against the appellant, on account of his popularity, had sought to evict him. Thereupon, the appellant had moved the vacation Court Chittoor by way of O.S. No. 17 of 2010, which was transferred to the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and numbered as O.S. No. 253 of 2010. This suit was filed by the appellant against Sri A. Stephen, the then president of the respondent-society and Sri T. Sammraj and one Ashirvadam, who was a police officer. This suit, filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful poss