Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
Arulmigu Thirumuruganathasamy Kovil – Appellant
Versus
Banumathi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated August 20, 2019, made by the Subordinate Court, Avinashi in A.S.No.47 of 2017, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated July 6, 2015, made by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi in O.S.No.303 of 2007.
This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful defendant–Temple. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated August 20, 2019, made by the ‘Subordinate Court, Avinashi’ [‘First Appellate Court’ for short] in A.S.No.47 of 2017, wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 6, 2015, made by the ‘District Munsif Court, Avinashi’ [‘Trial Court’ for short] in O.S.No.303 of 2007 was confirmed.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant while the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Original Suit. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
Plaintiff’s Case in Brief:
3. The Suit Property is a vacant site which forms a portion of Survey Nos.493/1 and 494/1 purchased by the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated July 3, 1995 from P. Vadivel who had purchased it vide Sale Deed dated November 1
The HR & CE Department is a necessary party in title disputes involving temple properties, and amendments to include declarations must be timely filed within the limitation period.
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 duty of the Executive Officer to protect the temple's property and the entitlement of the temple in case of mismanagement were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Plaintiffs must prove the validity of property transactions under the HR & CE Act, and the failure to produce adequate evidence resulted in the dismissal of their suit.
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. Wh....
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord when he has acknowledged the landlord's ownership through payment of rent.
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.
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
