The main legal point established is that the suit filed by the Executive Officer was maintainable, and the plaintiff, as the lawful owner, was entitled to recover possession from the defendant, who was not a tenant or lessee.

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’ when the plaintiff/Temple sought to re-enter the suit property, then the said Arumuga Naicker and Others filed a suit in O.S. No. 8268 of 1982, on the file of the XII-Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai and by a Judgment dated 19.02.1987, while granting a decree in favour of the said Arumuga Naicker and Others in respect of other Survey numbers, the suit was dismissed in respect of Survey No. 3155, that is, in respect of the suit property. While so the defendant is in occupation of the suit property, and she did not attorn the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff/Temple and regularise her occupation, therefore, she is neither a tenant nor a permissive occupier and is a rank Trespasser.

2.1. On 01.11.2006, when the Collection Clerk of the plaintiff/Temple visited the suit premises, he found that the defendant herein is trying to put up a new construction in the suit properties and therefore, a telegraphic notice was issued on 01.11.2006. As a matter of fact, on 01.11.2001, the Fair Rent Fixation Committee constituted by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department, fixed a fair rent at the rate of Rs. 2.56 per sq. ft. for the area in which the suit premises situate and therefore, the plaintiff/Temple is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,752/- per month and the defendant was also liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 358/- per day for the damages, use and occupation of the suit premises and hence, the suit.

(C) The Case of the defendants:

3. The plaintiff/Temple has not filed any title documents to prove their title. Originally the suit property belonged to one Sivalingam's forefathers from time immemorial. It was given to them absolutely by virtue of their rendering Bolichetty services to Sri Gangdhara Easwara Temple, Puraswalkam which is attached to Arulmigu Pathala Ponniammal Temple and its other connected Temples. After the death of one Narayanasamy Naicker, who is the paternal grandfather of Sivalingam Naicker, the father of Sivalingam Naicker, namely, Subramania Naicker and his brother Arumuga Naicker enjoyed the suit property. Upon the death of the said Subramania Naicker, the said Sivalingam and his paternal uncle Arumuga Naicker have enjoyed the suit property with the larger extent totalling to 3½ grounds out of which the said Sivalingam is entitled to ½ share in the entire property and being 1¾ grounds. The said Sivalingam sold one ground to one Durgabai, vide a registered sale deed dated 27.09.1963. A rectification deed was also executed on 11.12.1963 by the said Sivalingam, to rectify the error in Survey No. 3155, which was wrongly mentioned as Survey No. 55/1. The said Durgabai sold the suit property vide registered Sale Deed dated 17.10.1967 in favour of one Rajammal. The said Rajammal is the mother of the defendant. The said