NEELESWARI Vs. ARULMIGHU VEERANAKALIAMMAN THIRUKOVIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in O.S.No.112 of 2009 is the appellant.

(2.) The suit was filed by the first respondent temple seeking recovery of possession as well as arrears of rent. The temple would contend that the father of the first defendant Kasi Kudumban had taken the land alone on lease from the temple and was in possession as a lessee. After the death of the said Kasi Kudumban, the first defendant had trespassed into the property and has been in possession of the same. She has also started to put up construction in the suit property without permission of the plaintiff which necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit in O.S.No.89 of 2007. It is also claimed that the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed that the title was based on the revenue records and the re-settlement register.

(3.) The first defendant Muthulakshmi died pending suit and her legal heirs are impleaded as the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit property was classified as 'river porampoke' in the revenue records and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim title over the same. It was also contended that the patta produced is not the document of title and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek recovery of possession.