ARULMIHU KACHAPAESWARAR DEVASTHANAM Vs. KACHAPESWARASAMY NAGAR COLONY REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992 in A.S.No.58 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1990 in O.S.no.464 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

(2.) The first defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is the second defendant in the suit. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in a representative capacity representing all the residents of Sri Kachapeswararsamy Nagar Colony and they are about 176 in number and the said Sri Kachapeswararsamy Nagar Colony is situate in T.S.Nos.1274/1 and 1274/2 in two parts. The area, according to the plaint, is about 8.86 acres which has been subdivided into 170 plots measuring 20' x 66' each and six plots measuring 20' x 66' each. The case of the plaintiffs as seen from the plaint is that the plots were notified and auctioned for lease by the Executive Officer, Sri Kachapeswararsamy Devasthanam, Kanchipuram on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- per site on lease basis. According to the plaintiffs, the lease was for a period of four years, but however, to avoid registration, the document was executed for a period of 11 months. It is stated that the terms of lease also indicate the auction price. It is stated that the plaintiffs have paid the rent, advance money and also donation of a sum of Rs.500/-. It is stated that the amounts have been collected from all residents of the Nagar and separate lease deeds have been executed in favour of the the successful bidders and they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the lessees in respect of the suit property and as such, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that the plaintiffs have requested the defendants to effect a complete survey of the property and to execute the registered lease deeds consequent to the confirmation of auction. It is stated that the plaintiffs have issued a notice dated 15.3.1989 under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that the defendants have attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of their respective plots. It is stated that the attempt of the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs was thwarted and hence, the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property until evicted by due process of law.

(3.) The second defendant, the Assistant Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., Kanchipuram has filed a detailed written statement which was adopted by the first defendant also. The defendants have denied the existence of 'Sri Katchabeswaraswamy Nagar'. It is their case that the plaintiffs do not reside there. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are not representatives of the residents of Katchabeswaraswamy Nagar. The defendants have denied the allegation that an area of 8.86 acres has been subdivided into 176 plots and the plots were notified and auctioned as false. It is stated that no plots were formed and they were not demarcated also. It is stated that the plaintiffs are not lessees of the suit property and they are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the defendants that one of the conditions in the auction notice (condition No.14) was that the lease was subject to the approval of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Administration Department, Chennai and no approval was obtained from the Commissioner. It is also stated that the auction of the temple land as house sites for residential purpose is prohibited as per the Commissioner's Circular Instructions in Rc.No.24321/85,V2, dated 15.3.1985 wherein the Commissioner has restrained the lease of vacant sites belonging to religious institutions. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner has permitted lease of urban land, viz., the suit land for plotting out sites for construction of temporary dwellings, but no previous permission of the Commissioner was obtained as per the circular. It is also stated that the Commissioner, HR & CE. Department initiated suo motu proceedings under section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) in S.M.R.P.No.58/89 against the grant of approval of lease by the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the commissioner has also stayed all further proceedings by a telegram dated 19.4.1989 and also confirmed it by a communication sent by post. It is stated that the stay was also made absolute and the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Executive Officer of Katchabeswarar temple were restrained from implementing the auction proceedings dated 11.12.1988 and the final order was passed by the Commissioner on 26.6.1989 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.11.1988 in which the lease of land was permitted. It is stated that in the same order, the Commissioner set aside the consequential order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.2.1989 approving the lease in public auction in favour of 176 persons as the Deputy Commissioner has violated the circular instructions of the Commissioner. It is also stated that the Executive Officer of the temple has been directed to return the money received from the plaintiffs. It is therefore submitted that the plaintiffs are not entitled to enter upon the land and there is no legal relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. It is also stated that there was no notice under section 80 C.P.C. and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs are not lessees of the suit property.