IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.03.2011

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI

and

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

O.S.A.NOS.302 AND 303 OF 2004

O.S.A.No.302 of 2004:

A.N.Kumar

..

Appellant/Ist Defendant

Vs.

1. Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam

Thiruvannamalai, rep.by its Executive

Officer, (Asst.Commissioner)

Thiruvannamalai

2.P.C.Kumar

3.Dr.J.K.Kumar

4.Ganga Powell

5.M.P.Subbayya

6.V.M.Raghupathy

7.D.Srinivasa Rao

....Respondents/Plaintiff &

Defendants 2 to 7

O.S.A.No.303 of 2004:

A.N.Kumar

..Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam

Thiruvannamalai, rep.by its Executive

Officer, (Asst.Commissioner)

Thiruvannamalai.

.... Respondent/Defendant

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Prayer: Original Side Appeal No.302 of 2004 is filed under Order

36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment dated 14.2.2001

in C.S.No.1486 of 1988 on the file of this Court.

Original Side Appeal No.303 of 2004 is filed under Order 36 Rule

1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment dated 14.2.2001 in

Tr.C.S.No.847 of 1993 on the file of this Court.

For appellant : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan

in both Appeals for

Mr.V.Raghavachari

For respondents : Mrs.Chitra Sampath for R.1.

in both appeals

COMMON JUDGMENT

R.BANUMATHI.,J.

These appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned

single Judge in C.S.No.1486 of 1988 and Tr.C.S.No.847 of 1993 dated

14.2.2001, whereby the learned single Judge decreed the suit filed by

the Plaintiff Devasthanam directing the Defendants to quit and

deliver the vacant possession and declining to grant the relief

specific performance as prayed by the Defendant-A.N.Kumar. Since the

points for determination in both the appeals are one and same, both

the appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common

Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their

array in Civil Suit No.1486 of 1988 filed before this Court.

2. Case of Plaintiff-Devasthanam is that Plaintiff is the owner

of the property measuring about 64 grounds in S.No.41, Sri

Arunachalampuram in the village of Urur, erstwhile Saidapet Taluk.

According to Plaintiff-Devasthanam, the said 64 grounds was leased to

one A.Ranaganatha Mudaliar under lease deed dated 24.02.1937 for a

period of 50 years on a monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40/-. As per

the lease, the lessee was permitted to erect buildings and

superstructures over the property. Further case of Plaintiff is that

lessee Ranganatha Mudaliar assigned portions of the lease hold

property to some third parties in violation of the lease deed,

thereby putting an end to the lease in respect of the forfeited

portions. Lessee Ranganatha Mudaliar died leaving the Defendants 1

to 3, the grandsons and 4^th Defendant, the granddaughter. Case of

Plaintiff is that Defendants 1 to 4 as the legal heirs of the

original lessee are entitled to the leasehold right in respect of the

remaining property described in 'B' schedule.

3. According to Plaintiff, the period of lease fixed under Ex.A1

lease deed expired on 23.2.1987 and on the expiry of lease,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Defendants 1 to 4 have not surrendered possession of the land or the

superstructure and they continued to occupy only as tenants holding

over.

The Plaintiff-Devasthanam, being the public religious

Institution and taking into account the interest of the Institution,

the lease was not renewed. Since, Defendants failed to deliver

possession of the suit property, Plaintiff issued Ex.A2 legal notice

which was replied by the 1^st Defendant under Ex.A3.

4. Admitting the ownership of Plaintiff-Devasthanam in the suit

property and lease in favour of Ranganatha Mudaliar, 1^st Defendant

filed written statement stating that Ranganatha Mudaliar executed a