The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of the temple on the date of filing the suit was sufficient to establish its possession, and the defendants' right to assert title was not extinguished, but the issue of possession alone was answered in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.80 of 2002 dated 31.03.2004 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Tiruppattur (FTC), Vellore District reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.202 of 1998 dated 25.10.2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.202 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Ambur is the appellant herein. The suit in O.S.No.202 of 1998 had been filed by the appellant/Arulmigu Samundeswari Amman Alayam, Ambur, represented by its Dharmakartha N.Mohan against three defendants, Abdul Hag Sahib, Javeed Ahmad, Zubair Ahmad, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit. The suit schedule property is situated at S.No.276/02, Ward-C, Block – 18 in Ambur Town in Vaniyambadi Taluk and measures North to South 82 feet, East to West 31 ½ Feet and is land with temple and trees. By judgment dated 25.10.2000, the suit was decreed.

2. The defendants then filed A.S.No.80 of 2002 which came up for consideration before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupattur/Fast Track Court, Vellore and by judgment dated 31.03.2004, the Appeal was allowed thereby setting aside the decree of the Trial Court and dismissing O.S.No.202 of 1998.

3. Questioning that judgment of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff had filed the present Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following four substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the order of the lower appellate Court is not against documentary evidence under Exs.A3 to A7?

2. When evidence had been adduced before the Court with regard to the existence of temple for over 50 years, whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff have no title to the property on the basis of Exs.B1 and B3, is not perverse?

3. Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that the present suit is barred by res-judicata, when the document necessary to apply the principle had not been made available before the Court?

4. When the plaintiff had established possession for over a statutory period, whether the lower appellate Court ought not to have held that the temple had perfected title and the defendants, even if they have any, had lost that right under the principles set out under Section 28 of the Limitation Act?”

5. It must be noted that the 2nd respondent, Javeed Ahmed had died even during the pendency of the First Appeal, and his legal representatives had been brought on record in the First Appeal. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the 3rd respondent had died and since steps have not been taken, the appeal had been dismissed against the 3rd respondent by order dated 13.12.2021.

6. It must also be mentioned that in an order dated 08.01.2020, this appeal was also dismissed against the 1st and 2nd respondents. However, the 2nd respondent had died even during the pendency of the first appeal and his legal representatives had already been brought on record as 4th to 7th respondents.

O.S.No.202 of 1998 (Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur):-

7. The suit had been filed by Arulmighu Samundeswari Amman Alayam, Ambur, represented by its Dharmakartha, N.Mohan claiming that the said temple had been established more than fifty years back and that continuous poojas were being conducted and there were also idols placed in the temple. It was also stated that in a corner of the vacant land, with permission from the plaintiff, one Manickam had put up a small hut and was residing there. He died in the year 1964. Thereafter, with permission of the temple his son Kuppusamy was in possession of the said place. On 05.11.1981, the said Kuppusamy had relinquished his possession in favour of the then Dharmakartha of the temple.