EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU VEMBADI VINAYAGAR AND VEMBADI AMMAN TEMPLE ALAVANDAR CHARITIES OFFICE AT MAHABALIPURAM CHINGALPATTU Vs. K VASANATHAKAMAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.24 of 1989, dated 23.8.1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalpattu reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu made in O.S.No.235 of 1985, dated 27.1.1989.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with the following averments. THE respondent/ plaintiff was a tenant under the trustees of Sri Vembadi Vinayagar Temple and Vembadi Ammal Koil Temple and other temples in respect of the plot No.129, Muttukkadu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, paying monthly Rs.10 as ground rent, and has paid the monthly rent to the trustees regularly without default and obtained receipts of the said payments. THE plots were allotted to nearly 50 tenants to construct the houses. All the members have formed an association and the present plaintiff's husband was the Assistant Secretary of the said association. THE respondent/ plaintiff has constructed her superstructure and was living there for more than two years. THE respondent was paying the tax for the house as per the receipt filed in the plaint, and thus she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in her capacity as tenant of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property without any disturbance. THE defendant (Thakkar) was the new trustee for the temple and was threatening the plaintiff and other tenants to make forcible possession of the suit property and other properties without due process of law. He was going to demolish the plaintiff's house by force. THE defendant made an attempt on 17.7.1985 to take forcible possession by dismantling her house and the said attempt was thwarted. THE plaintiff had no other house except the suit house, and under such circumstances there arose a necessity to file a suit for permanent injunction as asked for.

(3.) DISPUTING all the contentions put forth by the appellant's side, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial Court dismissed the suit without proper appreciation and scrutiny of the evidence adduced; that the respondent herein took the possession of the property by entering into a lease agreement with the trustee of the temple in the year 1982 and has paid rental also in respect of which receipts have been passed over to her; that this would clearly indicate that she was a lessee in respect of the land and not a trespasser; that the respondent has also raised constructions in the vacant site under lease which fact was known to the defendant, but they have not raised any objection whatsoever; that the possession of the respondent was lawful and it cannot be termed as a trespass and hence the lawful possession of the respondent could not be interfered with by the defendant except by due process of law nd hence the lower appellate Court was perfectly correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and granting the relief as asked for.