G. Jayachandran, J.

The defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. The suit was filed by one Bava Chokkappa Mudaliar as hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Viswanathaswamy Temple in Kulakarai Village, Thiruvarur District, seeking possession, mandatory injunction and permanent Injunction in respect of the suit property.

2. The relief of declaration and mandatory injunction was granted and permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground that the defendant has already completed the construction on the encroached portion of the suit property and therefore the relief of permanent injunction is redundant. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. The aggrieved defendant, who is the appellant before this Court, challenges the Order of the Court below on the following substantial questions of law :-

(a) Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated the law relating to locus standi of the person who has filed the suit for recovery of possession without getting any permission from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (H.R. and C.E.) Department under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 ?

(b) Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated the legal principle relating to doctrine of acquiesance on the facts and circumstances of this case while granting a decree which amounts to demolishing a portion of the house ?

(c) Whether the Courts below have properly considered the material evidence in the case on the question of maintainability of the suit and on the question of adverse possession ?

4. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the O.S. No. 298 of 2000, which is now the subject matter of the appeal was allowed by the trial Court on 29.07.2003 which was challenged by the appellants herein in A.S. No. 99 of 2003. The first Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed on 29.07.2003 and remitted the matter back for retrial. The trial Court on remand retried the suit and allowed the suit partially on 18.08.2006 on the following lines:-

(a) Declared that the Plaintiff temple is the absolute owner of the suit property.

(b) Directed the defendants to deliver the possession of the property within two months after removing superstructure put up thereon;

(c) Dismissed the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants/appellants.

(d) Directed the defendants to pay the proportionate costs.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary object on the ground that while preferring the Second Appeal before this Court, the appellant has submitted the certified copy of the judgment and the decree of the trial Court dated 29.07.2003 passed in O.S. No. 298 of 2000 before remand instead of the judgement and decree dated 18.08.2006 passed after remand. Therefore the very maintainability of the appeal is questionable.

6. To rectify the error, the appellant has taken out an application M.P. No. 2/2014 to receive the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006 as an additional document passed in O.S. No. 298 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvarar and to condone the defect in proper presentation. This Court on hearing the parties and their rival submissions directed the Registry to seek the records of Sub Court, Thiruvarur within a period of one week and carry out necessary corrections, which was found not only in the decree in O.S. No. 298 of 2000 but also the first Appellate Court decree A.S. No. 2 of 2007. The counsel for the appellant admits that due to inadvertence the certified copy of the earlier decree dated 29.07.2003 was filed and Immediately after noting the defect, steps have been taken to rectify the same.

7. This Court on scrutiny of the records, finds that the error is actually in the printed copy of the decree. There is no deliberate omission on the part of the appellant. The certified copy of the trial court decree passed on 18