The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the civil court in entertaining the suit and emphasized the need for establishing lawful tenancy under the Public Trusts Act and Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.354 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.354 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

2. The unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal.

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for ejection.

4. It is not in dispute that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's temple.

5. The defendants would put forth the case that they are the tenants under the plaintiff's temple and on that basis would raise the defence that the plaintiff is not entitled to evict them by way of the present civil action and the plaintiff would have the remedy only before the appropriate authorities under the Public Trusts Act and Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and also would state that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case laid by the plaintiff and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 & A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked and Exs.C1 & C2 were also marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

8. Considering the pleas put forth by the respective parties and the materials available on record, it is found that the suit property had been originally leased out by the plaintiff's temple to one Lakshmi ammal and after her demise, the first defendant claimed to be in the occupation of the suit property as the tenant of the plaintiff's temple and would also state that the first defendant had obtained the necessary certificate from the plaintiff's temple pointing to the same. However, as rightly concluded by the Courts below, absolutely there is no acceptable and reliable materials projected on the part of the first defendant to safely conclude that he had been legally authorized by the plaintiff's temple to enjoy the suit property as its tenant and in such view of the matter, the claim of the first defendant that he is in the occupation of the suit property based on the certificate said to have been issued by the plaintiff's temple, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner and rightly disbelieved by the Courts below.

9. From the materials available on record, it is found that based on the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, the suit property had been converted into plots and it is noted that the other defendants are in the occupation of the suit property. Noting the abovesaid position, particularly, the suit property having not been utilised for cultivation and on the other hand, the same had been plotted out, the plaintiff had been necessitated to initiate the proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Cuddalore in PTA No.378 pf 2000 and from the order passed in the abovesaid proceedings by the authority dated 06.09.2001 marked as Ex.A1, it is found that after holding that the first defendant had no authority to convert the suit property as plots and also not indulged in the cultivation of the suit property for several years, accordingly, directed the eviction of the defendant from the suit property and further noted