Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
A. Raju(deceased) & Others - Appellant
Versus
A. Kuppannan & Others Respondent
S.A. No. 1313 of 1993
Decided On : 23-11-2020
For the Appellants :C.R. Prasanan, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that adverse possession by a temple, as a necessary party, can lead to the dismissal of a suit for not impleading the temple and ascertaining its character.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - S. 32-A and 32-B of Doddampalyam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed title over a piece of land and filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The defendants contested, claiming adverse possession through a temple located on the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed it. The second appeal was filed against the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple's existence and adverse possession were established, and the suit was dismissed for not impleading the temple as a necessary party.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's entitlement to relief, the maintainability of the suit, and the valuation and stamping of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was bad for not impleading the temple, which had perfected its title by adverse possession. The plaintiff's possession over the disputed land was not established, and the temple's character as a private or public temple needed to be ascertained with the temple as a necessary party.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court and the first appellate court. The court clarified that the dismissal did not permit disturbing the possession of the appellants beyond the land upon which the temple was located.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.1993 in A.S.No.111/90 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Gobichettipalayam preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.89 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Sathyamangalam.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. The Appellants are the legal heirs of the sole plaintiff in the original suit. Claiming title over 0.38 cents of land more fully described in the plaint schedule, the suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. Later, the plaintiff amended his prayer for the additional relief of mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure put up by the defendants on the suit land and to deliver the possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court confirmed it. Hence, this second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Pending appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal representatives are Appellants 2 and 3. Like wise, pending appeal, the second and third defendants died. Their legal representatives were brought on record. The first defendant remained ex-parte throughout, hence given up.
2. The facts necessary to decide this second appeal are as below:-
A.Raju(plaintiff) laid a suit claiming that under Ex.A-1 dated 24/04/1958, he purchased 1/3rd share out of 1.66 acres of land in S.No.32-A and 1/3rd share out of 1.52 acres of land in S.No.32-B at Doddampalyam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk. He sold 32 cents to one Sundaram who in turn sold it back to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 20/03/1970 Ex.A-2. The said property is in his possession being re-surveyed and assigned S.No.22/1. The Patta for this property is issued in his name and others. When the plaintiff attempted to put up construction in his property, the defendants, who have no right or title in any manner threaten to interfere his possession. Hence, apprehending forcible trespass, the suit initially filed for declaration and injunction. Pending suit, the defendants trespassed and forcible took possession of the suit land and started putting up construction. Hence, the prayer amended to declaration, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.
3. The first defendant remained exparte. The second and third defendants contested the suit, claiming that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors in title had any right over the suit property. Atleast for 50 years the possession is not with them. The Mahaliamman temple is in the suit land. The said temple is in existence for more than 100 years. The portion mentioned as foundational construction is part of the temple. The temple belongs to a particular community of the village. Open and hostile to the real owner the temple and the land around is under their administration. Recently, the villagers formed a committee to renovate the temple and from the donations collected from public, the committee had renovated the existing temple and conducted Kumbabiseham. The yaga gundam and bothi stone are in the suit land. Idol installed and daily worship is carried on by the villagers.
4. In the additional written statement it was contended, the sale deed dated 24/04/1958 is not a genuine transaction. The Mahaliamman temple, its Gundam, Pulpit and Flag pole are in the lay for more than 100 years in an extent of 21 cents. In respect of this 0.21 cents the temple had perfected the title by adverse possession. Therefore, any transfer of title in respect of this 0.21 cents is non-est, in view of the fact that the title holder has knowingly lost the possession to the temple for more than period prescribed. These defendants are the third parties to the suit property. The silence in the plaint about the existence of the temple in the suit property and non-joinder of the temple renders the plaint bad and deserved to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party and as well as mi
