Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
Arulmighu Vinayagar Kovil, rep by its Trustee K. Sundar Raj
Versus
The Sub Divisional Engineer & Another
S.A.No.684 of 1999
Decided On : 08-02-2012
Temple - Land Encroachment - The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Section 14 - The court discussed the applicability of the Land Encroachment Act to temple property, adverse possession, and jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The judgment focused on the interpretation of Section 2 of the Act, liability of unauthorized occupation, and the bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 14.
Fact of the Case:
The temple filed a suit seeking declaration of title by adverse possession and injunction. The trial court granted only the relief of permanent injunction. The appellate court set aside the injunction and dismissed the suit, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Land Encroachment Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple did not prove adverse possession and that the Land Encroachment Act applied to the temple property, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Land Encroachment Act to temple property, the right to claim adverse possession, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the temple did not establish adverse possession and that the Land Encroachment Act applied to the temple property, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The court also emphasized the bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 14 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of maintainability of the suit under Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act, but directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders based on the temple's reply to the eviction notice.
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.1998 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.101 of 1998 in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.1997 in O.S.No.2152 of 1993 passed by the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2. The 1st Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.101 of 1998 on 07.12.1998 in the Appeal has inter alia observed that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not proved that it has acquired adverse possession in respect of the suit property and further, opined that in the suit property though there is a temple, the same is to be called as in Siruvani Highways and there is no document to describe as temple property and moreover, the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction as per Section 14 of The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to hear the suit and resultantly, set aside the portion of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal without costs. Finally, the suit in O.S.No.2152 of 1993 on the file of the trial Court has been dismissed in toto.
3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 2 issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.17 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 and B.2 have been marked. Also, Exs.C.1 and C.2 have been marked on the side of the Court.
4. The trial Court on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a consequent conclusion that the Appellant/ Plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of declaration in respect of the suit property and also the Appellant/Plaintiff has not established the relief of adverse possession, but granted only the relief of permanent injunction and decreed the suit, without costs to that effect.
5. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of Law:
1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in law in setting aside the decree for injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant which has not been challenged by the Respondents by way of appeal?
2. Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in law in holding that the Land Encroachment Act would apply to the temple property overlooking the saving provision of Section 2 of the Act?
6. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial questions of law 1 and 2:
According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the 1st Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in the main suit, which has not been challenged by the Respondents/Defendants and this erroneous approach has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) submits that the 1st Appellate Court has gone wrong in setting aside the decree for injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff, which has not been challenged by the Respondents by means of a separate Appeal.
8. The stand of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that since the suit property is situated in a temple site, the same will attract the saving provision of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and therefore, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
9. Yet another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Plaintiff is that the suit temple is in existence from time immemorial and in any event from the year 1910 onwards and therefore, the Appellant/Plaintiff has perfected title to the suit property by means of long, continuous and open enjoyment of the site for well over 100 years.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff contends strenuously that no 'B' memos have been issued to the Appellant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
