A scheme decree is binding and establishes title; mere possession does not equate to ownership, and a plaintiff must prove superior title to recover possession.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the court of IV Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai in A.S.No. 79 of 2010 dated 23.08.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree of the court of XII Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai in O.S.No. 1803 of 2007 dated 17.10.2008.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. O.S.No. 1803 of 2007 is a suit filed by a public charitable trust. The case of the plaintiff is that it was formed by one Venkataswamy Gramani and is being administered pursuant to a scheme decree of this Court in CS.No. 221 of 1951. The plaintiff is represented by its hereditary trustee. The trustee and the committee members have been appointed by the High Court, pursuant to the aforesaid decree.

4. The plaintiff trust has properties at Mylapore, Tondiarpet, Thiruvallur, Vembanur and Kadapakkam. It performs both Hindu and Muslim festivals. The plaintiff trust performs daily poojas at Valleeswarar Temple in Mylapore, and also Brahmotsavam at Veeraraghavaswamy Temple at Thiruvallur, and Allah Sami Peeligoondu Procession at Mannadi at Chennai.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are occupying land measuring 1125 sq.ft in survey number 3940/2 at Vaidhiyanadha Mudali Street in Tondiarpet. The entire extent of the land situated in S.No. 3940/2 belongs to the plaintiff and it is about 45 grounds. The defendants, without obtaining any permission or consent from the plaintiff, had unauthorisedly and unlawfully occupied the property.

6. Since the occupation is unauthorized and unlawful, the plaintiff issued a notice on 23.09.2006 to the defendants calling upon them to enter into a lease agreement and to pay the land rent to the plaintiff trust. The defendants had received the letter, but did not issue any reply. They also did not come forward to execute a lease agreement. Thereafter, several oral and written requests were made by the plaintiff trust and they were of no use. Finally on 18.10.2006, a suit notice was issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to surrender the land to the plaintiff trust. The defendants, on receipt of the notice, issued reply on 02.11.2006 refusing to surrender the said property and claiming that they are in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property. Being left with no other option, the plaintiff came forward with the suit for recovery of possession.

7. The defendants, on being served with the summons in the suit, filed a detailed written statement. They admitted that they are in occupation of the property. They would state that the property had been occupied by their grandfather, one Mr.Raghavan, and after his death, by the defendants' father, R.Selvaraj, without interference from any third parties including the plaintiff trust. They submitted that at no point of time, they paid rent to anybody and they are not a tenant under the plaintiff or any other person. They pleaded that the plaintiff trust does not have right, title or interest over the property and in any event, if at all it had a right, it has lost the same by virtue of adverse possession of the property by the defendants. Though the plaintiff had not pleaded that there was a lease agreement between them, the defendants denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant. They would plead that the trustee of the plaintiff trust had called upon them to enter into a lease agreement, but they had refused to do so. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, they claimed for dismissal of the suit.

8. On these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit property.

2. Whether the defendant is liable to deliver and surrender vacant possession of the suit property?

3. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?”

9. On behalf of the plaintiff, one Venkatraman was examined as PW1 and he marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A27. On the side of the defenda