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.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the Sub Court, Nagapattinam in AS No.9 of 2013 dated 18.07.2014.

2. The appellant herein has filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam in OS No.275 of 2009 for the relief of recovery of possession and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the trial court, the defendant had preferred appeal in AS No.9 of 2013 before the Sub Judge, Nagapattinam and the same was allowed and the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court were set aside and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

3.1. The suit property and adjacent properties were purchased by the plaintiff through sale deed dated 06.03.1995 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff also purchased an extent of 40 cents land in RS No.22/5A at Puthur, Vadamalaiyan Pillan Thottam, where an extent of 8.25 cents land was sold and the remaining extent of 31.75 cents was retained with him. While so, in the month of Feburary, 2006, on the eastern side, the defendant encroached 12x10 feet land and stored the straw and also put thorn bushes. After knowing that, when the plaintiff questioned the defendant, he assured to remove the straw, however, the same was not removed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession.

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

4.1. The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the averments made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is incorrect to state that the property belongs to plaintiff, in fact the property was given to Aanjaneyar Temple as an inam by the king of Tanjore. Patta was also given in favour of the Aanjaneyar Temple. Therefore, the property belongs to Nagapattinam, Aanjaneyar Temple. Under the Inam Abolition Act, patta was given in the name of trustee, Venkataramana Rao. The plaintiff purchased the property through power agent and the same is forged one and the alleged sale deed also forged one. The said Venkataramana Rao had never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The said power deed as well as the sale deed are not valid. Since the property belongs to the Temple, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the property. In the suit survey number to an extent of EW 20 feet and NS 35 feet has been under the possession and enjoyment of the defendant’s family for more than 75 years and there is a fencing around the said property. On the southern side of the suit schedule property, he constructed house and residing therein. The description of the property is not correct and the defendant is entitled to the property by way of adverse possession also. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above said pleading, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, the trial court has framed the following issues for trial.

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession as prayed for?

ii) To what other reliefs?

6. Before the trial court, on the side of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A14 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked. After analyzing the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial court decreed the suit by directing the defendant to handover the possession of the property to the plaintiff after removing the straw and thorns within two months.

7. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant has preferred an appeal in AS No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Judge, Nagapattinam. Th