Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
M. Pandian & Others – Appellant
Versus
R. Pasupathy – Respondent
S.A. No. 1062 of 2008 & M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Decided on : 11-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :C.T. Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent:P.B. Ramanujam, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that possession and enjoyment of property must be upheld unless there is valid evidence to disturb it, and that documentary evidence and admissions play a crucial role in determining rightful possession.
Headnote:
Permanent Injunction - Property Dispute - Civil Procedure Code - Section 100
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the possession and administration of a temple property. The plaintiff claims rightful possession and administration of the temple, while the defendants claim the same based on their lineage and previous administration.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below granted the relief of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, upholding their possession and enjoyment of the temple property. The second appeal challenging this decision was dismissed by the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's possession of the temple property was based on permission granted by the defendants or in their own right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the temple property was not based on permission granted by the defendants, but in their own right. The court also considered documentary evidence and admissions by the defendants to support the plaintiff's claim.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree granting permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff were confirmed, and the second appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.356/2004 dated 17.02.2005 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and also against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 805/97 dated 30.09.2003 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2005 passed in A.S. No.356/2004 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 passed in O.S.No. 805/97 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.
3. The defendants in O.S. No.805 of 1997 are the appellants in the Second Appeal.
4. Suit for Permanent Injunction.
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the Madurai Veeran temple formerly known as Sri Meenakshi Amman temple situated at No.11, Madurai Veeran Street, T.Nagar, Madras 600 017 was founded and established by one Bhoopathy Naicker, the paternal grand father of the plaintiff and after the demise of Bhoopathy Naicker, his two sons, namely, Rangaraja Naicker, the plaintiff’s father and, Munusamy Naicker, the father of the defendants 1 and 2 were the trustees of the said temple and they were in charge of the administration of the temple by performing the daily poojas and festivals. On 13.08.1994, the plaintiff’s father died and after his demise, Munusamy naicker took over the charge of the temple and after the demise of Munusamy Naicker, the plaintiff took over the charge and administration of the temple and the possession of the temple is with the plaintiff. The defendants, who are the sons of the deceased Munusamy Naicker, have not participated in the temple affairs and the defendants preferred a suit in O.S.No.2592/1986 for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff as if they are in the possession of the temple property and that they are performing the daily poojas of the temple. The suit was decreed exparte. The plaintiff has preferred an application to set aside the exparte decree with the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. While so, the defendants forcibly broke open the temple doors on 03.05.1994 and took the possession of the temple and also the temple land. The application preferred by the plaintiff to condone the delay in I.A. No.5799/1994 has also been dismissed. The plaintiff is taking steps to prefer a civil revision petition against the order passed in the said application. The plaintiff is in the possession of a portion of the property bearing No.11, Madurai Veeran Street, T. Nagar, Madras 600 017 and the defendants are in the possession of another portion. Even in the suit laid by the defendants against the plaintiff in O.S. No.2592/1986, the plaintiff’s possession has been clearly admitted by the defendants. The decree obtained by the defendants in the above suit is only with reference to the portion in the occupation of the defendants and not with reference to the portion occupied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s possession is lawful. The plaintiff has been paying the tax to the corporation for their occupation of the portion in their possession and in the guise of the exparte decree obtained by the defendants, the defendants are attempting to disturb the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the portion in their occupation and hence, according to the plaintiff, he is necessitated to lay the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no right, interest or claim over the suit property and the Madurai Veeran temple situated at No.11 Madurai Veeran Street, T. Nagar, Madras 600 017 was founded by the maternal grand
