YASODAI AMMAL Vs. CHINNATHAMBI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is one Ammani Ammal Madam in Tiruvannamalai, standing on an extent of 25,247sq.ft. intended to provide shelter for pilgrims.

(2.) The appellants filed the suit for declaration that their family should be in management of the Schedule mentioned properties as trustees and for possession. According to them, there was originally a Choultry known as Bangalore T.A. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and Ammani Ammal Choultry. It was founded by one Ammani Ammal who constructed the northern Gopuram of the Temple which was known as Ammani Ammal Gopuram. At the time of construction the building now known as Madam was used for storing the construction materials for the Gopuram. Later when the Gopuram was completed this building was left by the said Ammani Ammal for providing shelter for pilgrims. In 1764, Ammani Ammal entrusted the management of the Choultry to the appellants' predecessors.

(3.) The genealogical tree appended to the plaint would show the relationship. T.A. Vijayapuri Chettiar had four sons, Ponnusami Chettiar (P), Rathinavelu Chettiar (R), Vajravel Chettiar (V) and Manickavel Chettiar (M). P died issueless. R died leaving two sons who are dead and their wives are appellants 1 and 2. V had two sons. His branch is not represented in the suit. M had three sons, one of whom is dead and the other two are appellants 3 and 4. M executed a Will on 08-08-1966. The management of the Choultry is mentioned in the said Will. There is reference to a watchman, who must be paid salary regularly. The Will had been acted upon. R also executed a Will on 16-09-1962. Here too is a reference to Ammani Ammal Choultry and to the watchman. The photostat copies of the two Wills have been produced. In 1890, the grandfather of R and M received a letter from the Sub-Collector, South Arcot regarding this Madam. A photostat copy of the said communication is also filed. In 1939, the first respondent's father Perumal wrote to R regarding the Municipal Tax etc., and this letter would show that the first respondent's father had no independent right in respect of the building, but was only a watchman. On 25-10-1944, a notice was issued by the Municipality, Tiruvannamalai complaining of some health hazard. R had written a reply in his own handwriting. The Town Field Survey Register would show that the property is referred to as Ammani Ammal Madam. After the death of R and M, their heirs were not evincing much interest in the management of the Choultry. Taking advantage of the same, the first respondent set up an independent claim in respect of the suit property. So the suit was filed.