K V LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioner as against the order of this Court dated 08.12.2008 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 10566 of 2009.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that the property comprised in Survey No. 945/6 measuring an extent of 1368 square foot referred to in the impugned notice of the first respondent belongs to her absolutely. She would contend that even though the impugned notice was issued to her husband, she is entitled to question the same in this proceedings. She would contend that originally the property was belonging to one Angu Thayammal and Nani Pandithar. From whom one Govindasamy Naidu had purchased the property way back in the year 1953. As the property was adjacent to the temple/the second respondent, originally, there was a proposal to have an exchange of the property way back in the year 1966. But, it did not fructify. Subsequently in the year 2007, according to the petitioner, the second respondent temple passed resolution that the petitioner has encroached the property of the temple and therefore, subsequently, they have issued a notice on 14.02.2007 calling upon her to vacate the property in question. Against which, she has challenged the notice in O.S. No. 135 of 2007 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai for the relief of injunction, which is pending.

(3.) According to the petitioner, after purchase of the property by the said Govindasamy Naidu and on his death one Kuppusamy purchased the property in the year 1983 from the sons of Govindasamy Naidu and Kuppusamy is the brother-in-law of the petitioner's husband. She would also contend that the said Kuppusamy executed a power of attorney in her husband's name and on the basis of power of attorney, her husband executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.01.2005 and therefore, she is the owner of the property.