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.

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 10, 1978. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of Suit Property. Revenue Records, Land Tax Receipt, Patta, Possession Certificate are all in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit Property. Except the plaintiff nobody else has got any title, rights, or interest over the Suit Property.

3.1. The defendant - Temple is a third party no way connected with Suit Property, trying to trespass into the Suit Property for constructing building for its devotees. The defendant is trying to unlawfully interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. On September 18, 2007, the defendant attempted to encroach into the Suit Property for construction, but the plaintiff prevented it. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant may encroach the Suit Property at any time in the near future. Hence the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant.

Defendant’s Case in Brief:

4. The defendant filed Written Statements, wherein it is averred that neither the plaintiff nor her vendor ever had any title, interest or right over the Suit Property. They were never in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Sale Deed dated July 3, 1995 is false and the revenue records and certificate obtained based on that false Sale Deed is invalid.

4.1. The Suit Property absolutely belongs to this defendant - Temple as per the Inam Settlement Deed executed by Venkatachalam Chettiar, son of Muruganatha Chettiar of Karukkampalayam, on November 9, 1935. The settlement was accepted and acted upon. The revenue records were also mutated to the name of this defendant. The Suit Property is in actual physical possession and control of this defendant alone. Without any right, by collusively creating false documents, the plaintiff is making illegal claim over the Suit Property. As the absolute owner in possession of the Suit Property, the defendant has no need to trespass into its own property. The alleged incident of trespass by the defendant on September 18, 2007 is false. The Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party viz., ‘Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department’ [‘HR & CE Department' for brevity]. Court Fee paid is incorrect. The Suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

Trial Court:

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what other reliefs?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?

(iv) Whether the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?”

5.2. At Trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s husband was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 to