Decree for permanent prohibition of leasing temple properties modified.

This revision petition is by two strangers who are not parties to the suit but who feel aggrieved by the ex parte judgment made in O.S. No.619 of 1991 on 29. 1991, by the learned District Munsif, Tirukoilur.

.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit against the third respondent herein. The third respondent is the trustee of two temples mentioned in the plaint. The suit property also belongs to the temple. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed themselves as lessees under the Temple for the period 6. 1991 to 30.6.1992. They said that plaint A and B Schedule items are in their possession on the basis of the lease, which was to expire on 30.6.1992. They filed the suit on the basis that the third respondent herein was about to terminate their lease and reauction the property even before the expiry of the period. They wanted to restrain the Temples from conducting any auction either on 27. 1991 or on any other date, and that their possession should not be disturbed.

3. It is seen that even though the third respondent herein (defendant- temple) was served with summons, no one represented the temple, nor entered appearance through counsel. Finally an ex parte decree was passed. The relevant portion of the decree reads thus:

4. By virtue of the decree, the third respondent was prohibited from auctioning or leasing out the property either on 27. 1991 or on any other date. That means, there was permanent bar or prohibition against the Temple from leasing out the properties even though the plaintiffs had claimed injunction only upto 30.6.1992. It seems, the temple wanted to lease out the property subsequently, and the petitioners were interested in taking the same on lease. But, at that time, some contempt application was moved by respondents 1 and 2 herein on the allegation that the petitioners herein are attempting to trespass into the property, with the active assistance of the third respondent herein. It was at that time, the present civil revision petition was filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Before this revision petition was admitted, leave was granted for moving this revision and notice was also served on the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel on both sides.

.7. I have already said that the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 was only upto 30.6.1992, and even they wanted a decree prohibiting the temple from disturbing their possession only till the expiry of their term of lease, since they apprehended that they might be dispossessed before the expiry of their term, and they thought that some action might be taken on 27. 1991. A copy of the plaint is also made available among the typed-set of papers. A reading of the plaint makes it clear that even the plaintiffs did not claim any right much less a permanent right over the plaint mentioned property, against the temple. But, simply because the temple remained ex parte, a decree was drafted in such a way that the temple was permanently prohibited from leasing out its properties.

8. Even though the defendant was ex parte in the suit, there was a duty on the part of the court below to apply its mind before granting the decree. By virtue of the decree, we find that some right has been given to the plaintiffs in the suit which even they did not ask for. Once a decree is obtained, the respondents 1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs) have exploited the same to their benefit.

9. In this connection, it is better to follow a decision of this Court reported in Annapoorni v. Janaki, (1991)1 L. W. 141. When the revision petition came up for hearing, Srinivasan, J. treated it as a suo motu revision petition by exercising powers under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

10. That was a case where a daughter-in-law filed a suit against the mother-in-law, claimed to be a legal heir of her husband. She claimed that she is the absolute owner of the property, though the mother also had an equal share as an heir to her son. The mother did not contest the matter, and ul