Back
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Arulmigu Pathala Ponniamman Temple – Appellant
Versus
Vitta Bai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(A) The Appeal:
1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the partly unsuccessful plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2007, in O.S. No. 872 of 2006 in and by which, the suit is filed by the plaintiff/Temple directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for permanent and mandatory injunctions, was dismissed in respect of delivery of vacant possession and future damages, while decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction.
(B) The case of the plaintiffs:
2. The plaintiff is one of the ancient Temples having several properties in and around of Purasawalkam, Chennai. The property in Survey No. 3155 is owned by the plaintiff/Temple. The property bearing Door No. 71, Kuttiappa Giramani, 2nd Street, Kilpauk Chennai-600 010, measuring an extent of 1 ground 1800 Sq. ft. which is in the said Survey No. 3155, belongs to the plaintiff/Temple. While so, one Arumuga Naicker and Others were let out some of the other properties of the Temple for performing 'Bolichetty' during festival times. However, when the said Arumuga Naicker and Others had stopped performing ‘Bolichetty’ whe
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Officer has the right to file a suit for temple properties, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the prop....
A party claiming ownership must prove their title independent of any weaknesses in the opponent's case; admissions in legal documents undermine claims.
A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord when he has acknowledged the landlord's ownership through payment of rent.
A suit for recovery of possession against a lessee is premature without formal termination of the lease under the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, revenue settlement proceedings do not negate the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of property ownership, the requirement of notice under S.80 C.P.C., and the maintainability of the suit under S.108 of the Hindu ....
The court affirmed the temple's ownership of the property, ruling that the tenant's occupation was illegal after lease termination, and the suit for recovery of possession was maintainable.
The burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title rests on the plaintiff, who must approach the court with clean hands and provide sufficient documentary and oral evidence to establish their cla....
Revenue documents are presumed to be genuine and correct, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging their validity to prove that they are vitiated by fraud, surreptitious entry, or non-co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the temple to maintain a suit for recovery of possession despite the issuance of a joint patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam A....
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
