A party cannot claim possession over temple property without proper lease recognition, and mere application for tenancy does not confer rights.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendant in the suit is the appellant.

2. The Respondent/Temple filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from putting up any construction in the suit property and also for recovery of possession of the suit property after removal of the construction standing thereon. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed by the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff was granted decree for recovery of possession of the vacant site after removal of the construction standing thereon. The suit was dismissed in respect of the prayer for injunction. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come before this Court.

3. According to the Respondent/Temple, the site of the suit property belonged to it and one Saradambal was Lessee of the site under Temple. The defendant has no right over the suit property and presently, he is in occupation of the suit property and his status is that of the encroacher. The defendant without any manner of right occupied the suit property and attempted to put up construction. Hence, the above said suit was filed by the Respondent/Temple.

4. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement and denied various averments found in the plaint. In the written statement, the appellant clearly admitted the suit site belonged to the Temple and Saradambal was the original Lessee of the site. It was further pleaded that after death of Saradambal, her husband Kalimuthu got the Leasehold Right and as per the Will executed by him dated 22.02.2007, the suit property was bequeathed in favour of one N.Kuppusamy. He sold the property along with Superstructure that stood thereon to one Iqbal by Document dated 01.05.2009. Thereafter, the defendant purchased the Superstructure in the suit property and the Leasehold right over the site under Document dated 02.05.2009 from said Iqbal. It was also stated that in view of the general ban on registration of the document regarding the temple property, the Document dated 02.05.2009 was only a notarised one. After purchase of the superstructure of the subject property, the defendant submitted a representation dated 15.05.2009 before the Executive Officer of the Plaintiff/Temple seeking his recognition as the Lessee of the site. Though the Executive Officer of the Temple agreed for said course and advised the defendant to pay rent for the site in the name of the original Lessee, till date no such Lease Arrangement came into existence.

5. After getting no objection from the Executive Officer of the Temple, the defendant started putting up construction in the suit property after removal of the old construction. In these circumstances, the present suit has been filed. It was the specific case of the defendant that he is not an encroacher in the suit property and he is a Purchaser of the Superstructure along with Leasehold right from the earlier Lessee.

6. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, formulated the following issues for consideration:-

“1/ jhthbrhj;J thjp Myaj;jpw;F brhe;jkhdjh?

2/ jhthr;brhj;jpy; gpujpthjpnah mtuJ Ml;fnsh epue;ju fl;Lkhdk;

bra;af;TlhJ vd;W thjp nfhuf;Toa epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk;

thjpf;F fpilf;fTlajh?

3/ thjp nfhuf;Toa fl;Lkhdj;ij ePf;fp RthjPdk; xg;gilf;f nfhUk;

ghpfhuk; thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Tlajh?

4/ jhth brhj;jpy; gpujpthjp brhy;tJ nghy fl;Lkhd';fs; Kd;ng Koe;Jtpl;ldth?

5/ fpilf;ff;Toa ,ju ghpfhuk; vd;d?”

7. Before the Trial Court, an employee of the Temple was examined as PW.1 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A9. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and on his behalf, 7 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B7.

8. The Trial Court based on the ev