TAMILARASI Vs. ARULMIGHU NELLUKADAI MARIAMMAN TIRUKKOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.283 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit property stating that the suit property belonged to the respondent Temple which is a Public Religious Temple and the appellant's husband was let into possession of the property as a tenant and he has also executed a document dated 1.2.1986 in favour of the Temple and put up hut and was paying rent of Rs.10/- per month and after the death of her husband, the appellant is enjoying the property and thereafter on 7.6.2003 the tenancy was terminated by issuing a notice directing the appellant to vacate and hand over possession on 30.6.2003 and the appellant sent reply questioning the title of the respondent Temple and therefore the suit was filed for eviction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts erred in holding that the respondent Temple is the owner of the suit property without properly appreciating the surveynumber stated in the schedule. According to him, originally the suit was filed in respect of T.S.No.888 and thereafter the schedule was amended instead of T.S.No.888 new T.S.No.889 was substituted on the basis of the Commissioner's report and according to the Property Register maintained by the respondent Temple, the respondent Temple is not the owner of the property in respect of T.S.No.889 and therefore the respondent Temple cannot maintain the suit for eviction without proving their title. He furhter submitted that Ex.A1 alleged to have been executed by the husband of the appellant was in respect of T.S.No.888 and therefore that cannot be relied upon to presume a tenancy in respect of the suit property. He therefore submitted that having regard to the fact that the respondent Temple is not the owner of T.S.No.889, the suit for eviction is not maintainable. He further submitted that the property in the possession of the appellant is a Government poramboke and the respondent Temple has no title.