Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2551
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
Annamalai
Versus
Govindan (died) & Others
S.A. No. 1445 of 1992 & CMP No. 14361 of 2002
Decided On : 30-06-2010
For the Appellant:Mr. J. Ramakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. AL. Gandhimathi, Advocate. & R12, R15 & R16- No Appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for recovery of possession alone is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership. Non-joinder of a necessary party can also render a suit not maintainable.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 - Section 109 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the failure of the Appellant/Plaintiff to prove ownership of the suit property belonging to the Plaintiffs Temple, the acquisition of adverse possession by the Defendants, and the bar of limitation. Key legal provisions such as Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 were interpreted and influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant/Hereditary Trustee of the Plaintiffs Temple filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore. The trial court concluded that the Appellant/Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property, and the Defendants acquired adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit filed for recovery of possession alone was not maintainable without a declaration of ownership of the suit property. The Appellant/Plaintiff failed to prove tenancy, and the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of a necessary party. The court confirmed the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the second appeal.
Issues: The issues included the failure to prove ownership of the suit property, acquisition of adverse possession by the Defendants, non-maintainability of the suit without a declaration of ownership, and non-joinder of a necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for recovery of possession alone was not maintainable without a declaration of ownership. The Appellant/Plaintiff failed to prove tenancy and non-joinder of a necessary party, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were confirmed. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
1. The Appellant/Hereditary Trustee of Plaintiffs Temple has filed this second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1991 in A.S.No.79 of 1981 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The Learned First Appellate Authority viz., the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore in the Judgment in A.S.No.79 of 1991 dated 26.06.1991 has among other things observed that the Appellant/Hereditary Trustee has failed to prove that the suit property belonged to the Plaintiffs Temple and further, the Plaintiff Temple also failed to prove that the Defendants have default in regard to the payment of rent and added further, it has held that the Defendants have acquired adverse possession by virtue of long enjoyment in the suit property and also has come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, the Plaintiff/Temple is not entitled to get the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits and ultimately dismissed the appeal with costs.
3. The trial Court has framed six issues for trial. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, witness P.W1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A22 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, D.Ws.1 to 7 have been examined and Exs.B1 to B54 have been marked. Also, the Commissioners Report and Plan have been marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.
4. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property belonged to the Plaintiffs Temple and that the Defendants have acquired Adverse possession pursuant to their long enjoyment and that the suit is barred by Limitation and consequently, dismissed the suit without costs.
5. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment passed by the Learned First Appellate Authority viz., the Principal Judge, Cuddalore in A.s.No.79 of 1991 dated 26.06.1991, the Appellant/Hereditary Trustee of the Plaintiffs Temple has filed the present second Appeal before this Court.
6. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:
Whether the Judgments of the Courts below are vitiated by their failure to consider the entire evidence on record and apply the correct principles of Law?
CONTENTIONS:
7. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the First Appellate Authority has not taken into account of Ex.A5 Certified copy of the Town Survey Field Register which clearly proves that the suit property in T.S.No.1665 belong to the Plaintiffs Temple and the contra finding is an erroneous one and further more, Ex. A3 the Certified copy of the Judgment dated 03.08.1989 in O.S. No. 733 of 1986 and Ex. A4 the certified copy of the Meeting Proceedings of the Temple go to prove clearly that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs Temple is maintainable in Law, but this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to by the First Appellate Authority in the Judgment in A.S. No. 76/91 dated 26.06.1991.
8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the First Appellate Authority has not taken into account of Ex. B52 Settlement Deed dated 03.09.1965 executed by Veerappa Padaiyachi in favour of Anandhayee Ammal which proves the title of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiffs Temple. That apart, the present Appellant is the second Plaintiff in O.S. No. 733 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore wherein the suit has been filed by the Temple to evict one Devaraj from the property belonging to the Temple and this vital aspect of the matter proves not only the title of the property of the Temple but also proves the competency of the Appellant to file the present suit as Hereditary Trustee. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant that if he establishes that he is the Hereditary Trustee then he can still maintain the suit as an worshipper and retain the possession of the property by filing a sui
