RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 7th defendant in the suit is the appellant.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The plaintiff is a cultivating tenant in respect of the properties and they belong to the idol of Koduthuvaithan Guruthotha Swamy Temple in Punjai Sangenthi Village, Lalgudi Taluk. The properties were taken over by the HR & CE Department and the 5th defendant was appointed as a Trustee of the temple. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as a lessee for two years and paying the rent regularly and there are no arrears. The plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 belong to Muthiriar caste and there is enmity between defendants 1 to 4 and the trustee the 5th defendant. Now, the defendants are threatening to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Hence the suit. The 4th defendant resisted the suit stating that defendants 1 to 4 are unnecessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff is not a lessee of the suit property, but the lands belong to the Temple. They are under the direct control and supervision of the HR & CE Board. They have leased out the suit first item on 16.06.1982 for three years to one Dorairaj through public auction. Items 2 to 4 were leased out to one Radhakrishnan on01.09.1978 for a period of eight years. They alone are in active possession and enjoyment of the property. The 5th defendant is the father of the plaintiff, who happened to be the trustee of the temple and the records have been created. The 5th defendant contended that he was the trustee of the temple. The plaintiff became the tenant of the properties and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as a cultivating tenant. The 7th defendant contended that the plaintiff is not the cultivating tenant of the properties. The suit property belongs to the temple. The plaintiff claims to be a trustee as well as a tenant. The suit properties were purchased by defendants 1 to 5 on behalf of the Idol and managed it jointly. There was difference of opinion between defendants 1 to 4 with the 5th defendant. Now, the 5th defendant with collusion of his son, the plaintiff, had created false receipts in his favour. The 6th defendant is the lessee of item one of the property and now surrendered the land to the appropriate authorities and had gone to Kerala for his livelihood. The 7th defendant is a lessee of items 2 to 4 of the properties and he is in actual possession and is paying the rent to the temple. The trial court framed 5 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked. The trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.60 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Ariyalur and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of items 2 to 4. Aggrieved against this, the 7th defendant has come forward with the present second appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: