BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.No.1545 of 2003 Sri Muniaswamy Temple, Rep. by Poosari and Trustee P.Kasimayan, S/o.Late Periyasamy Sembatti Sindupatti (Post), Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Appellant (Poosari and Trustee of the appellant temple is substituted vide Court order dated 31.10.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.13611 of 2023)

Vs Chinna Thevar ... Respondent PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2002 passed in A.S.No.224/2000 on the file of II Additional District Court, Madurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1999 passed in O.S.No.484/1997 on the file of III Addl. Sub Court, Madurai.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.R.Paranjothi

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property lies in S.No.65/4 equivalent to the Zameen Pymash No.626. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the old Pymash numbers of the suit property were 625, 626 and 627. It was claimed by the plaintiff that 55 cents of land in old Pymash No.626 originally belonged to grandfather of the plaintiff Muthumayathevar and he acted as Poosari cum Trustee of Muniyasamy Temple. It was also claimed that Muniyasamy Temple situated in old Pymash No.626 and the entire extent of 55 cents had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest in their capacity as Poosari. The defendant's father purchased 2 acres 85 cents in old Pymash Nos.625 and 627 under a sale deed dated 26.09.1940. The defendant had no claim or right over old Pymash No.626. However, they got patta for the entire new S.No.65/4 to an extent of 3 acres 40 cents including the old Pymash Nos.625, 626 and 627. The plaintiff submitted a petition before the Tahsildar, Usilampatti for correction of revenue records and after enquiry, he ordered inclusion of the Trustee of the Muniyasamy Temple also as a co-pattadhar for entire 3 acres 40 cents in new S.No.65/4. Though the defendant has no right over the suit property, he attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and hence, the above said suit was laid.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the right as well as possession over the suit property. It was claimed by the defendant that entire 3 acres 40 cents in new S.No.65/4 has been in possession and enjoyment of the defendant and his predecessor in interest. They denied the existence of Muniyasamy Temple in the said survey number. It was also claimed by the defendant that Muniyasamy Temple situated on the Eastern side of the suit property in Kazhuva Devar's land. The order passed by the Tahsildhar, Usilampatti for inclusion of the plaintiff's name in the revenue records was set aside on an appeal filed by the defendant. It was also claimed by the defendant that the possession of the defendant over the entire 3 acres 40 cents in the suit survey number was confirmed in the settlement proceedings and patta was issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the name of the defendant. Thus, claiming continues possession over the entire extent of 3 acres 40 cents in new S.No.65/4, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as P.W.2. 7 documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and 38 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B38.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his possessio