Ledger is not book of accounts

1. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.404 of 1978 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above second appeal. The 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for delivery of possession and mesne profits both past and future.

2. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments are as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the second defendant has been a tenant in possession of the property for the past thirty years. The rent of Rs.300 which was originally paid was enhanced to Rs.400 from 1965. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant lays claim to the suit property taking advantage of the litigations pending between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in respect of trusteeship. The 2nd defendant has paid rent for the period upto 19. 4. 1969 and the rent from 20.4.1969 is due. The plaintiff claims arrears of rent for three years. The 2nd defendant denied the plaintiff’s title to the suit property and hence both the defendants were impleaded.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement wherein it is contended that the plaintiff has been a trustee of the temple and before him his father was the trustee of the temple. The suit property belongs to the temple. In 1968 new set of trustees were appointed and an Executive Officer took charge of the temple. The plaintiff instead of handing over the documents has kept them for himself and has been laying claim to the suit property. Proceedings were initiated against him by the H.R. & C.E. Department. The assessment stood in the name of the plaintiff as the Dharmakartha and not in his individual capacity. From the year 1969, 1979 the 2nd defendant began to pay the rent to the 1st defendant and the rate of the rent from Rs.42-50 per month was enhanced to Rs.129 per month. The 2nd defendant has executed a lease deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 17. 197 5. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit property and is estopped from denying the title of the 1st defendant to the suit property.

4. The 2nd defendant in his written statement contended that he became a tenant of the suit property under the Temple i.e. the 1st defendant. There seems to be misunderstandings between the past trustees and the Executive Officer. The plaintiff issued a notice to the 2nd defendant demanding rent in 1972 but he kept quiet for a long time. Therefore, he is estopped from claiming any right to the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff for arrears of rent is not tenable and the suit for declaration and for arrears of rent is not maintainable.

5. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to

5.A.3 4. The 1st defendant temple in support of its defence, examined one Officer by name S.Rajapandian as D.W.1 and the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.2 Ex.B.1 to B.46 were marked in support of the defence of the temple, the 1st defendant.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues viz.,

.(1) Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit property?

.(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rent as claimed? and

.(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession.

7. Relying on the documents filed by the plaintiff viz., Municipal Tax receipts, account ledgers as well as Ex.A30 and A.34 the trial court agreed with the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the 1st defendant temple preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 138 of 1981 on the file of District Court, Coimbatore. After determining necessary points for consideration, the lower Appellate Court has also very much relied on the documents referred to and accepted by the trial Court, consequently confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

9. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below the unsuccessful 1st defendant