VALLIKUNNIL JANAKI AMMA Vs. AMRUTHAMANGALAM KSHETHRAM MOORTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants who concurrently suffered a decree for recovery of possession are the appellants. The suit was filed by Sri. Amruthamangalam Kshethram represented by the Devaswom Executive Officer. It is contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to Amruthamangalam Devaswom and that the defendants have trespassed into the said property and reduced it to their wrongful possession. It was contended that as per the order of this Court in CRP 1651/1990 the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Kozhikode had issued a Circular dated 04/02/1997 and directed the Devaswom to inquire and report about the unlawful possession and enjoyment of the properties belonging to the Devaswom. Thus the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have trespassed into the plaint schedule property and reduced the same to their wrongful possession. A notice was sent to the defendants intimating the said fact. Since they did not surrender possession, the suit was filed. Defendants filed written statement contending as follows:

(2.) Before the Trial Court, Executive Officer of the Devaswom was examined as PW 1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. The first appellant herein was examined as DW 1 and Exts. B1 to B9(b) were marked. The learned Munsiff, after elaborate discussion of the entire pleading and evidence found that the lease set up by the appellants herein is unacceptable. It was also held that the lease is hit by Section 29(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. No lease of temple property can be granted without the sanction of the Commissioner (HR & CE Board). It is further contended that though the Land Tribunal passed an order in favour of the appellants herein that was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the judgment of the Appellate Authority became final and as such the plea of tenancy now set up by the appellants cannot be sustained. Though a plea of adverse possession was also set up by the defendants that was also found against by the learned Munsiff. Hence, the suit was decreed granting recovery of possession.

(3.) Though the defendants contended that plaintiff Devaswom had no title to the property, Ext. A2 the certified extract of the Settlement Register was accepted by the learned Munsiff to hold that in the absence of any other evidence, it can be found that the Devaswom was having title to the property. Since the defendants could not prove their right to be in possession of the property, to resist the suit for rejectment, the Trial Court granted a decree as prayed for. The learned Sub Judge concurred with the view taken by the Trial Court.