2021 Supreme(Mad) 1557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J.
Sri Viruntheeswarar Temple, Represented by its Fit person Kurudampalayam (The Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathasamy Temple, Karamadai, Mettupalayam Taluk) - Appellant
Versus
T. Shanmugasundaram & Others - Respondents
S.A. No. 585 of 2007
Decided On : 17-08-2021

Point of law : Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.”

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 100 - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 - Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1968 - Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1968 - Relief of declaration that the sale deeds null and void - Suit schedule property has fraudulently sold - Whether the courts below are correct in holding that the suit is not maintainable without seeking for a relief of declaration while plaintiff Temple's title over the suit property has already been declared by the Settlement Tahsildar - Whether courts below are correct in holding that the plaintiff Temple, true owner of the property cannot question the illegal transaction made by the third defendant - Whether lessor has a right to evict the lessee from the lands in question is not ousted in any manner by said Act - Plaintiff Temple is that they are the absolute owners of the property in Coimbatore Registration District in Periyanaickenpalayam Sub Registration District, in Coimbatore Taluk (North) in According to plaintiff, suit schedule property was originally an inam land and subsequent to the passing of Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1968, the suit schedule property was granted ryotwari patta in the name of the plaintiff temple represented by then hereditary poojaries under an order of Settlement Tahsildar which has been marked as Ex.A1 before the trial court - According to them, the third defendant claiming to be an owner of the suit schedule property has fraudulently sold the same under nine different sale deeds to the defendants which is not binding on them. In such circumstances, the plaintiff Temple has filed the suit for the aforementioned relief - Third defendant who is the main contesting defendant that suit schedule property was originally owned by her husband Swaminathan, as seen from the revenue records –

Finding of the court :

, Courts below have also not gone into the title of the property and have rejected the claim of the plaintiff only on the ground that when there is a cloud over the title, remedy for the plaintiff is only to file a suit for declaration and since they have sought only for the relief of permanent injunction, they have been directed to file a civil suit for declaration to declare their title over the suit schedule property - Proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar's case referred to supra is squarely applicable to facts of the instant case also - Decision of the learned single judge of Court in the case of K.S.Raja Shanmugavel vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2011-1-L.W.626 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no bearing for the result of this second appeal since the plaintiff temple has not produced any parent title deed to prove that they were in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of Devadayam Grant with Iruvaram rights over the suit schedule property - Courts below have also not gone into the title of the respective parties but have only rejected the claim of the plaintiff temple on the ground that since there is a cloud over the title, only remedy available to the plaintiff temple is to file a suit for declaration and a bare suit for injunction is not maintainable - Case on hand, there are disputed questions of fact and the terms and conditions of alleged inam in favour of the temple have not been produced by the plaintiff temple and further Courts below have rightly not given any finding as to the title of the suit schedule property since the plaintiff temple has filed a suit only for a bare injunction and has not sought for a declaratory relief by paying the requisite court fee under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 - Courts below have rightly appreciated evidence available on record and have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff will have to seek a declaratory relief to declare them as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and without seeking such a declaratory relief –

Result: Appeal is dismissed