SEETHARAMA REDDIAR Vs. SENGAZHANI VINAYAGAR KOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment in A.S.No.3 of 2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in O.S.No.386 of 2005.

(2.) The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants and third respondent, seeking the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and for future mesne profits.

(3.) The plaint averments shows that first respondent is Sri Sengazhani Vinayagar Temple. It is an ancient temple and it is more than 150 years old. It is managed by Trustee/Manager Arumugha Chettiyar. The suit property belongs to first respondent temple and it has been in possession and enjoyment of third parties on lease on varam basis. It was leased out to Konda Reddiar on 12/12/1935 and it is evidenced by a registered lease deed. The lease was for the period of five years and annual lease amount was Rs.35.00 payable on or before 26th Aipasi of every year. On failure to pay the lease amount the lessor is entitled to take possession. Even after the expiry of the lease, Konda Reddi continued in possession as lessee by holding over and continued to pay the lease amount. After the death of Konda Reddiyar, his sons Ramalinga Reddiar and Seetharaman (First Defendant) became tenants. It is evidenced by a lease deed executed by Ramalinga Reddiar on 18/1/1967. The annual lease payable was Rs.750.00 per month. Ramalinga Reddiar and first defendant had been in possession as lessees. They had been paying lease amount till 2003. First appellant/defendant is the second son of Konda Reddiar. Second appellant/defendant is the wife of the first appellant. First defendant had executed a settlement deed in favor of his wife. He has no right to execute a settlement deed. Second defendant executed sale agreement to the third defendant. Defendants colluded together and attempting to grab the property of the temple. Therefore the suit.