BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Sri Pushpavaneshwaraswami Temple, Devasthanam, Represented by its Executive Officer, West Thirupunthuruthi – Appellant
Versus
A. Jeyapal & Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 1463 of 2001
Decided On : 11-02-2021
LEASE - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 34 - Lease exceeding five years without Commissioner's sanction is null and void.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over mandatory injunction for rent payment by cultivating tenant
Finding of the Court:
Court analyzed the validity of the lease and the plaintiff's right as a cultivating tenant
Ratio Decidendi: Invalidity of lease under Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
Result: Second Appeal allowed, judgment and decree in A.S.No.35 of 2000 set aside, and decree and judgment in O.S.No.96 of 1999 dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2000 in A.S.No.35 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2000 in O.S.No.96 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiurvaiyaru).
1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below granting mandatory injunction directing the appellant to receive the rent from the plaintiff/first respondent said to be the cultivating tenant, the present Second Appeal is filed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal is as follows:
3. (1). The suit property originally belonged to the appellant Temple. Originally, the lands were leased to the persons viz., Appasami Muthiriyar and Arumugam Muthiriyar. They leased their leasehold interest and handed over the property to one A. Sambasivam, S/o. Late Arunuchalam Muthiriyar, in and by a registered lease deed, dated 24.10.1965. The said A. Sambasivam was in possession of the property till his death in the year 1974. Thereafter, the second defendant discharged the mortgage and took possession of the property. Therefore, the above said Arumugam Muthiriyar, the original tenant has assigned the lease in favour of the plaintiff on 29.12.1987 for a sum of Rs.200/- per annum.
3. (2). When the plaintiff sent the rent due through a Demand Draft, the same was returned by the Executive Officer. Hence, the suit filed for mandatory injunction.
4. It is the contention of the defendants that originally the persons viz., Appasamy Muthiriyar and Arumugam Murthiriyar, who were the tenants in the suit property. Whereas, the plaintiff said to have obtained the assignment only from the said Arumugam Muthiriyar, one of the tenants referred to supra. Similarly, on such assignment, the plaintiff will not get any benefit under Act 57/61 and Act 10/69 and any entries in the RTR register will not bind the Temple. Only the second defendant was paying the rent to the Temple. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:
(ii).To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?”
6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no evidences were adduced and no documents were marked. The trial Court granted judgment and decree.
7. The First Appellate Court has also confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court as against which the Second Appeal is filed.
8. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court:
(ii).Whether the Courts below are correct in law in failing to hold the suit bad for non-joinder of Appasamy Mutharaiyar, who the Courts below have held to have had a right of possession as a co-lesee, as a necessary party in the suit?
(iii).Whether the Courts below are correct in law in decreeing the suit based upon earlier judgments in which the appellant Temple was not a party?”
9. Today, this Court has also framed the additional following substantial question of law in the Second Appeal:
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that merely on the ba
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.