Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY
Idol Sri Kalyana Pasupatheeswara Swamy Sri Kalyana Pasupatheeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Karur – Appellant
Versus
Kumarasamy Gounder (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
Both the appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed in the Appeal Suit and Cross Objection hence both the appeals are taken up together and a common judgment is passed.
2.i. The second appeal in S.A.(MD)No. 83 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff / Temple against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2013 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.
2.ii. The second appeal in S.A.(MD)No. 84 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff /temple against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2013 passed in Cross Appeal No.39 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur, partly confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.
3. The plaintiff / temple in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendants in the suit are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking stated in the suit.
4. The suit is filed to declare the temple as an a
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 court ruled that rightful ownership evidenced through proper documentation takes precedence over claims of adverse possession by the defendant regarding property allegedly belonging to a temple.
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 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....
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 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....
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
