JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the decree and the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, the present appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:-

The suit property belonged to Vishwakarma Community and the same was managed by the trustees appointed by the Community. There are now six trustees and they are now managing the properties. The plaint is filed by the Managing Trustee. The father of the first defendant became a lessee by a registered deed, dated 21.06.1961 in respect of the first item of property. He was continuing as a tenant by holding over. The rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per year. After the death of the first defendant's father, the defendants have not paid the rent for the years 95-96, 96-97, and 97-98 for more than three years. Since the Community intended to construct a Marriage Hall, the plaintiff requires the property. But the defendants did not hand over the property. Hence, the suit.

4. The first defendant admitting that his father was inducted as a tenant, contended that the temple did not belong to the Vishwakarma Community. The first item of the property belong to the temple and it is a public temple and there is no hereditary trustee. He further contended that the father of the first defendant was in possession of the property as a tenant from the year 1961 and there is no connection between the Vishwakarma community and the first item of the suit property. Thereafter, the father of the first defendant constructed a building in the first item of the property and he was enjoying the same as a tenant. During his life time, the father of the first defendant has executed a Will in respect of the tenancy right in favour of his grandsons. After the death of Esakki Devar/father of the first defendant, the defendants 2 and 3/grandsons of Esakki Devar are enjoying the property.

5. The defendants 2 and 3, who are the sons of the first defendant admitting the tenancy of the grandfather from the year 1961, took a defense that the property does not belong to the Community. Further, it is the contention that one Sankaravadivammal had endowed the property for charitable purposes and appointed trustees on 25.06.1929 to manage the property. The grandfather of the second and third defendants become tenant under legal heirs of some of the trustees in the year 1961 and rent was never increased at any point of time. The plaintiff's community cannot seek possession for the purpose of constructing a Marriage Hall. After the death of the grandfather of the second and third defendants, the tenancy right has been transferred to the second and third defendants by virtue of the Will executed by their grandfather on 09.09.1994. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as rent?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for medium term income?

4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

5) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

7. Issue No. 4 was given up by the plaintiff as the second and third defendants were impleaded as party respondents in the suit.

8. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked and on the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked.

9. The trial Court, based on the evidence and materials, has granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the second and third defendants. Challenging the same, the present appeal suit is filed.

10. During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant died and the same was recorded and his legal heir was also impleaded as third respond