J U D G M E N T

The defeated defendant is the appellant and the respondent Arulmighu Pathala Ponniamman Temple (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed suit in O.S.No.5423 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and also for future damages.

2. The plaint proceeds on the basis that plaintiff is a public religious temple governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department and the Executive Officer of the temple is authorised to represent the temple in all legal proceedings as per Clause 9 of the Scheme decree passed by the Hon'ble High Court in C.S.No.553/1949 r/w Section 6 (9) of the HR&CE Act.

2.1 The plaintiff is an ancient temple. The suit premises bearing Door No.72, Barracca Road, First Street, Nammalwarpet, Chennai – 12 in Survey No.3182 to an extent of 750 sq.ft. is absolutely owned by the respondent/plaintiff and the extract from the Permanent Land Register maintained in Purasawalkam Perambur Taluk 'A' Register.

2.2 During the inspection of the officers of plaintiff, they came to know that the appellant/defendant is in occupation of the suit property without paying any rent. The appellant/defendant is neither a tenant nor a permissive occupier under the plaintiff. While so, on 06.06.2006, when the collection clerk of the temple visited the premises, it was found that the appellant/defendant totally demolished the existing super structure and tried to put up a new super structure without the consent of the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for delivery of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to put up further construction and also seeking mandatory injunction to demolish unauthorised occupation, future damages and for costs.

3. The appellant / defendant filed written statement as well as additional statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint. It is further denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property in Survey No.3182 and alleged that the appellant/defendant is in the occupation of the suit property for more than 100 years, after the demise of his father Chinnathambi, he is paying property tax and water tax to the Corporation. The appellant/defendant has not paid any rent to the respondent / plaintiff and he did not know who is the owner of the said property. The appellant/defendant and his father were enjoying the property for more than 100 years. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant relied on the judgment in O.S.No.8268 of 1981 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based upon the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed six issues as under -

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get delivery of possession of the suit property ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is true owner of the suit property in respect of land ?

(iii) Whether the defendant is continuously in possession of the suit property for more than 15 years without any interruption ?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction ?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a mandatory injunction against the defendant ?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any damages for the past and future? If so, what is the rate ?

5. During the trial, the plaintiff's Executive Officer examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

6. Based upon both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has proved the pleadings by both oral and documentary evidence, while the appellant/defendant has not established or proved his title to the property, as claimed by him and accordingly decreed the suit in part to the extent of possession and for permanent injunction, however, refused the relief of mandatory injunction due to non-establishment of the case in respect of mandatory injunction and also to gran