ARULMIGU SAVUNDIYAMMAN THIRUKOVIL Vs. GOPAL RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a Suit for declaration that the Document registered as Document No.494/1996 at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Srivilliputtur, as void and unenforceable and to order the Sub Registrar, to mark the void nature of the said Document in his books and for decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and order defendants to hand over possession or permit the plaintiffs to recover possession of the Suit property and for mesne profits and for permanent injunction forbearing the defendants from alienating the Suit schedule property till the disposal of the Suit.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is a Temple under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charity Endowments Act, 1959 and belong to Devangar Chettiar Community. The second plaintiff is a Trustee and worshipper and he filed a Suit as a worshipper and also as a representative of all the worshippers. The Devanga Chettiar Community purchased the Suit schedule property on 17/4/1916 for the temple. The first defendant's father took the schedule property on lease by a registered deed dtd. 1/5/1967. The Trustee of the temple filed a Suit in O.S.No.572 of 1980 for evicting the tenant. The tenant filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.2 of 1981 under Sec. 9 of Madras City Tenants Protection Act [Tamil Nadu Act III of 1929]. The Suit was dismissed and the Original Petition was allowed. The appeals and cross appeals were finally decided and the Sale Deed dtd. 11/1/1996 was executed and registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, on 18/1/1996. The property was illegally conveyed and the Original Petition was closed marking full satisfaction on 23/1/1996. The then Trustees of the temple were negligent in conducting the Suit and the Original Petition. As a worshipper, the second plaintiff now fear that there could have been collusion between the Trustee and the defendants. Therefore, he challenges the Sale Deed dtd. 11/1/1996 registered as Document No.494/1996 as fraud, illegal, void and ignore the Sale Deed. He challenged the Sale Deed as void on three specific grounds:-

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants denied the averments made in the plaint. The Suit is liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC as it is scandalous. The litigations reached finality. In O.S.No.572 of 1980 and in O.P.No.2 of 1981, the plaintiffs' relief for recovery of possession was dismissed and the first defendant's petition under Sec. 9 of the MCTP Act was allowed on 16/9/1981. The appeal filed against the decree and judgment of the Trial Court vide A.S.No.36 of 1982 and A.S.No.11 of 1982 were dismissed on 16/11/1987. The Civil Revision Petition filed in CRP No.702 of 1988 against the decree and judgment passed in appeal preferred against O.P.No.2 of 1981 was remanded to the Trial Court with some observations on 21/9/1993. The remand order was challenged by the defendants vide SLP No.21884 of 1993. The SLP was partly allowed with a direction on 24/10/1994. The plaintiffs filed a Review Application in R.A.No.16 of 1995 against the SLP order, which was also dismissed on 18/1/1995. Thus, the ligations reached finality on 24/10/1994 much less on 18/1/1995. After conclusion of these proceedings, the plaintiffs are re-litigating the very same matter, which amounts to contempt.