Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Syed Ahmed Hussain & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Thirukoil, Represented by its Executive Officer having its office at the temple premises Aminjikarai, Chennai & Anr. - Respondents
S.A. Nos. 600 to 604 & 136 of 2017 & CMP. Nos. 2883 of 2017, 15066 to 15070 & 15213 of 2017
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Recovery of Possession - Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act - 2003 (1) LW 386, 2008 4 SCC 594, 2003 l LW 663, 1985 (4) SCC 10, 1998 (2) LW 189 (FB), 1995 (4) SCC 156, 1975 ILR MAD 501 - The court discussed the entitlement of the temple to maintain a suit for recovery of possession, the effect of joint patta issued under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, and the estoppel of the appellants from denying the title of the temple over the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent temple sought recovery of possession of a property from the appellants, claiming that the property belonged to the temple and was let out to the appellants. The appellants denied the temple's right over the property, citing the issuance of a joint patta in their name and the temple's, and their continued payment of rent to the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple proved the appellants were tenants of the property and were estopped from denying the temple's title. The court also held that the temple was entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of possession, despite the joint patta issued under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the temple to maintain the suit for recovery of possession, the effect of the joint patta, and the estoppel of the appellants from denying the temple's title over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the estoppel of the appellants from denying the temple's title, the entitlement of the temple to maintain the suit for recovery of possession, and the effect of the joint patta issued under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts. No order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT
(Prayers in S.A.No.600/2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 made in A.S.No.488 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2008 made in OS.No.4913 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
In S.A.No.601/2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 made in A.S.No.558 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007 made in OS.No.4912 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
In S.A.No.602/2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 made in A.S.No.593 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007 made in OS.No.4768 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
In S.A.No.603/2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 made in A.S.No.594 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007 made in OS.No.4736 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
In S.A.No.604/2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 made in A.S.No.597 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007 made in OS.No.4910 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
In S.A.No.136/2017: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 made in A.S.No495 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007 made in OS.No.4767 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)
Common Judgment:
1. The unsuccessful defendants in the suit for recovery of possession are the appellants. The suit filed by the respondent temple was decreed by the trial Court and the First Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against them, the defendants have come up with these Second Appeals.
2. According to the respondent temple, the suit property belonged to it and the same was let out to the appellant on monthly basis. The appellant was allowed to put up a temporary structure in the suit site and as per understanding the appellant should not put up any permanent super structure in the suit site. It was averred by the respondent temple that the appellant was in arrears of rent from October 2002 to 2004 and hence, the respondent temple issued a notice terminating tenancy by end of October 2004. The notice was acknowledged by the appellants and they came out with untenable reply. It was also averred by the respondent that the appellant who entered the property as tenant of site was not entitled to deny the title of the respondent. On these pleadings the respondent sought for recovery of possession of vacant site after removal of the super structure put up by the appellants. The respondent sought for recovery of arrears of rent and recovery of damages for use and occupation.
3. The appellants herein filed a written statement denying the right of the respondent temple over the suit site. It was their case that the superstructure in the suit site was put up on the property for the past 70 years ago and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was also averred that the suit site was an inam and after coming into force of Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, the Settlement Thasildar issued a joint patta in the name o
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....
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.
A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord when he has acknowledged the landlord's ownership through payment of rent.
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 plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession of the property was established based on the revocable permission/licence granted by the plaintiff's temple and the defendant's failure to establish ....
The Appellate Court erred by dismissing the cross-appeal without independent consideration, contravening procedural fairness, and the temple's claim to property based on service grant was upheld.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the seco....
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
