Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T. Ravindran, J.
Sri Madhavaperumal Temple – Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi and Others – Respondents
S.A. Nos. 1858 of 2002, 61, 849 of 2005
Decided On : 03-06-2019
Tamil Nadu Act 30 - Section 44 - Challenge in the second appeal- claimed title to the properties - oral and documentary evidence - Temple, in particular, resisted the plaintiffs claim of title, possession and enjoyment to the plaint "A" schedule property or for the matter, the plaint "B" schedule property, as such, contending that they have no right, title or interest to the plaint "A" schedule property and according to the temple, it is only it, who has got the right, title and entitlement to the suit property and in such view of the matter, contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs prayed for in the suit – Held, counsel for the plaintiffs in respect of his contentions has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in Madras Rep. by its Executive Officer vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Land Administration Department, Chennai and Others Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, 1981 (94) LW 411 : AIR 1981 Madras 318 and the judgment of this Court dated 11.07.1996 passed in Executive Officer vs. Dhanalakshmi and Others. Similarly, the counsel for the temple placed reliance upon the decisions reported in Muthusamy Gounder and Others vs. Arulmigu Temple at Rep. by its fit Person - Even assuming that the quit rent cannot be construed as acknowledgement of the title on the part of the plaintiffs in favour of the temple, the fact remains that all along, the plaintiffs and their predecessors had been paying the quit rent one way or the other to the temple. As could be seen from the documents, as pointed out supra, it is only the temple, which had been granted the right in respect of the property comprised in R.S. No. 3814 for the upkeep of the temple and accordingly, it is seen that exemption had been granted in favour of the temple from paying the quit rent, Urban Tax etc., so long as the property is utilised for the temple purpose. Therefore, when the temple is found to be the Maanyamdhar or Inamdhar of the property in R.S. No. 3814 and the said right had not been shown to have been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest in the manner known to law by the temple, in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to lay a claim of right to the property involved in the suit on the basis of the transactions projected by them, wherein, as above pointed out, the temple is not a party and the temple being granted the Maanyam/Inaam right in respect of the property in R.S. No. 3814, it is found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs prayed for against the true owner, viz. the temple and the first appellate Court is found to have not appreciated the abovesaid facts in the correct perspective both documentary wise as well as legal wise and erred in disturbing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and in such view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the reasonings and conclusions of the first appellate Court for upholding the plaintiffs case suffers from perversity and also found to be totally illogical and irrational in all aspects - appeals are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
T. Ravindran, J.
1. Challenge in the second appeal No. 1858 of 2002 is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.05.1999 passed in A.S. No. 190 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.1997 passed in O.S. No. 7012 of 1982 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. Challenge in the second appeal No. 61 of 2005 is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2003 passed in A.S. No. 210 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.1997 passed in O.S. No. 972 of 1983 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. Challenge in the second appeal No. 849 of 2005 is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2003 passed in A.S. No. 209 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.1997 passed in O.S. No. 7290 of 1982 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4. The second appeal No. 1858 of 2002 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(ii) Whether the learned Additional Judge erred in law in not drawing the presumption under Section 44 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 and hold that the 1st defendant temple is the grantee of both the warams and corroborated by Exs. B9 to B15?"
5. The second appeal No. 61 of 2005 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(2) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the suit property is a "melvaram" land?
(3) Whether the courts below have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence when they found that the appellant has failed to prove his title and possession?
(4) Whether the courts below are right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential injunction, when he has proved his title and possession of the suit property in a manner known to law?"
6. The second appeal No. 849 of 2005 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(b) Whether the courts below are right in law in assuming that merely because the temple has collected quit rent, it will become the owner of the soil?
(c) Whether the courts below have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence which clearly shows that the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title had preexisting title and which cannot be taken away by any proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963?
(d) Whether the Courts below erred in applying the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 when the defendants have not produced any orders of proceedings under the said Act?
(e) Whether the courts below have properly applied the law that any proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 will not be a bar for claiming title in a suit based upon a pre-existing title?
(f) Whether the courts below have properly understood the meaning of the expression "quit rent" and whether they are right in law in equating the person paying the quit rent as xxxxxx when the temple was xxxxxxx?
(g) Whether the courts below have properly appreciated the interpretation of the term "quit rent" which only means that instead of paying revenue to the Government by the owner of the soil, the owner of the soil pays the same to the temple, and as such, the ownership of the soil never cam
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
