Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Arulmighu Dakshinakokarneeswarar Koil, Rep. by the Executive officer of the A/M. Venkatachalapathy Temple, Pulivalam - Appellant
Versus
Kamalavadivelu - Respondent
S.A. Nos. 940 & 941 of 2008
Decided On : 03-03-2021
Second Appeals - Recovery of Possession - Section 100 of CPC, 1908 - HR & CE Act - [Substantial Questions of Law: (1) Whether the recommendation for the grant of licence which is subject to the approval of the joint Commissioner (HR & CE) can give rise to a lease, even de hors such approval. (2) Whether the recommendation for lease granted by the Trustees of the temple can give rise to valid the lease in the absence of formal documents embodying the terms of the lease namely, rent, term of lease and condition of the default, can be valid? (3) In a suit for recovery of possession, when the temple's title is admitted and that the defendant has no valid tenancy in existence, whether the suit can be dismissed on the ground of the failure of the plaintiff to prove the allegation in the pre-suit?] - The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the suit property and future mesne profits. The defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's title to the property. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was a trespasser, while the defendant claimed to have been appointed as the collection maniam by the plaintiff's temple. The trial court held in favor of the defendant, but the first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The second appeals were filed by the plaintiff's temple. The substantial questions of law revolved around the validity of the paguthi arrangement and the plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession. The court found that the defendant's occupation of the property was based on permission/licence granted by the plaintiff's temple, which could be revoked at any time. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property as the defendant failed to establish a valid paguthi arrangement and the plaintiff's title to the property was not disputed. The judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the suit property and future mesne profits, alleging that the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant claimed to have been appointed as the collection maniam by the plaintiff's temple and occupied the property based on a paguthi arrangement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's occupation of the property was based on permission/licence granted by the plaintiff's temple, which could be revoked at any time. The plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property as the defendant failed to establish a valid paguthi arrangement and the plaintiff's title to the property was not disputed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the paguthi arrangement and the plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The defendant's occupation of the property was based on permission/licence granted by the plaintiff's temple, which could be revoked at any time. The plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property as the defendant failed to establish a valid paguthi arrangement and the plaintiff's title to the property was not disputed.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2004, made in |A.S.Nos.74 and 76 of 2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court at Tiruvarur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2002, made in O.S.No.30 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif court at Tiruvarur.
1. Challenge in these second appeals are made to the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2004, passed in A.S.Nos.74 and 76 of 2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvarur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2002, passed in O.S.No.30 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif court, Tiruvarur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.
3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.30 of 2002 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.
4. Suit for possession and future mesne profits.
5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that suit property belongs to the plaintiff's temple and enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendant without any entitlement had encroached into the suit property during October 2000 and put up the thatched house and in this connection, a police complaint had also been lodged against the defendant and thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 12.01.2001 calling upon the defendant to hand over the possession of the suit property and the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations and it is false to state that the suit property had been leased out to the defendant as put forth in the reply notice and it is further false to state that the defendant was working as the collection maniam of the plaintiff's temple and the Executive Officer had removed him from the service and further stated that the defendant is only a trespasser qua the suit property and no permission had been given to the defendant to put up the superstructure in the suit property and further is stated that the defendant had given a letter to the plaintiff dated 13.10.2000 agreeing to vacate the suit property without any protest and he having failed to adhere to the abovesaid terms, according to the plaintiff, it has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
6. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached into the suit property during October 2000 and put up the thatched house illegally is totally false and after admitting the claim of the title of the plaintiff to the suit property, according to the defendant, the plaintiff was unable to collect the rent from the lessees and paguthi of the various properties belonging to the plaintiff's temple and accordingly with a view to collect the rent and paguthi from the various tenants and paguthitharars, based on the resolution passed by the trustees of the plaintiff's temple, the defendant was appointed as the collection maniam and on that basis the defendant and another maniam who had also been appointed as the collection maniam had been allotted 5 cents of land in the suit survey number for putting put up the house construction and accordingly based on the abovesaid resolution, the defendant had put up the superstructure in the suit property and enjoying the same by paying the tax, etc., and the documents available with the plaintiff would go to disclose that the defendant was working under the temple as the collection maniam and the Executive Officer had destroyed the attendance register unlawfully with a view to buttress the case of the plaintiff one way or the other and the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to vacate the suit property by handing over a letter dated 13.10.2000 is false and the said letter had been obtained from the defendant forcefully by the plaintiff and the paguthi arrangement of the defendant had not been lawfully terminated and the defendant sent a proper reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff and the defendant is not a trespasser qua the suit property and therefore,
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
