Community agreements for property use cannot be unilaterally canceled without proving a violation, preserving community interests is paramount.

JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, dated 15.07.2004, in A.S.No.179 of 2001, reversing the judgment and decree of the III Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore, dated 31.07.2001 in O.S.No.656 of 1991.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein and the defendants 1, 3, 6 to 11 are the respondents herein. The defendants 2, 4 and 5 died pending trial.During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent/first defendant also died and the sixth and seventh respondents were recorded as his legal heir.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

4. According to the plaintiff, Sree Muthuvinayagar Sree Kamatchiamman Ekambareswara Devasthanam is a Trust and the suit property belongs to the plaintiff Devasthanam. The defendants are Managing Trustees of “Certified Goldsmith Association”, “Sri Visweswara Trust” and “Lakshmiammal Educational Trust”. On 10.07.1979, the plaintiff Devasthanam and the Certified Goldsmith Association entered into an agreement to promote the social, religious, arts, educational and general welfare of the Viswakarma community. Again on 13.02.1985, the plaintiff Devasthanam entered into another agreement with the defendants.

5. As per the earlier agreement, the Certified Goldsmith Association was allowed to make construction in the suit property after preparing a plan, obtaining approval from the Devasthanam and sanction from the Municipal Corporation and use it without paying any rent. As per the second agreement, the Association can build new construction as agreed thereon, but, however, 50% of the rental income realized from 4 shops, should be paid to the Devasthanam. Pursuant to the agreements, buildings were constructed in the suit property and in fact, Sri Visweswara Vidyalaya School and four shops were constructed. The first defendant being the Managing Trustee of Sri Visweswara Trust is receiving the rent from the four newly constructed shops and paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month being 50% of the rent and also received receipts from the Devasthanam. When, as per the agreement, the defendants should account for the total rents, they have failed to do so. Also, the induction of the tenants should have been done only after the consultation with the Devasthanam. The first defendant had inducted tenants without the knowledge and consent of Devasthanam and also received Rs.50,000/- per shop as advance for the four shops, which has not been accounted for. The agreement contemplates that the Municipal Corporation taxes, water, land taxes and charges have to be paid in the name of the plaintiff Devasthanam but however, the first defendant has paid in his name and is retaining the receipts. Since the activities of the first defendant is prejudicial to the interest of the Devasthanam, the object of the agreements is not fulfilled and hence, both the agreements have become automatically cancelled.

6. In fact, on 28.02.1991, the defendants have entered into a further agreement among themselves without the consent of Devasthanam, thereby, the defendants have violated the terms of the agreements and as the defendants 1, 9 and 10 are slowly attempting to convert the Devesthanam properties into their properties and further, the plaintiff Devasthanam has not been informed about the formation of Sri Visweswara Trust and Lakshmiammal Educational Trust, the plaintiff