Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.Sundar, J
Thangavelu – Appellant
Versus
Arulmighu Ramanatha Swamy Koil – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. temple filed suits against individuals (Para 2) |
| 2. defendants filed independent suits (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. defendants contended on ryotwari patta (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. trial court's findings on title (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court upheld temple's title (Para 17) |
| 6. all appeals dismissed (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
There are two batch of second appeals. The first batch of appeals, namely S.A.Nos.186 of 2008 to 189 of 2008 have been preferred by the defendants in the four suits filed by the respondent and the second batch of cases namely S.A.Nos.241 to 250 of 2008 have been filed by plaintiffs in the suits. Since the issue raised in all the appeals are one and the same, all the appeals are clubbed together and taken up for disposal.
2. The respondent Arulmighu Ramanathasamy Temple at Rameshwaram as plaintiff, which is under the control of HR&CE Department had instituted independent suits against 105 individuals before the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties comprised in R.S.No.460/1, 465/1, 468/2, 490/3, 491 and 481/1 situated in Veeranvayal Village, Thiruthuraipoondi, claiming that the suit prope
The temple established its title over properties through legal processes, while defendants failed to prove their claims, leading to dismissal of appeals.
Statutory grants of title following inam abolition provide the necessary basis to recover possession without seeking additional title declaration.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reassess factual findings unless a clear error in law has been demonstrate....
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....
The presumption of ownership under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act requires appellants to provide evidence to rebut the established rights of religious institutions over inam lands.
Statutory presumption under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act establishes ownership rights of religious institutions over inam lands, unless rebutted by substantial evidence.
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 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....
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
