S RAJARATHINAM (DECEASED); STEPHEN SELVAKUMAR; R SAMUEL KEERTHIVAZAGAM; R JAYAMATHI CHANDRAKALA; R VASANTHA KIRUBAVATHI AND R NALINI RAJ CHRISTINAL Vs. C S I COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Church of South India Trust Association('CSI' in short), Coimbatore and the appellants herein are claiming right to a property which is 40' x 80', door No.45, Brough Road, Erode.

(2.) Each of them filed a suit and the suit ended in favour of the CSI. O.S.No.273 of 1984 was filed by CSI for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The appellants filed O.S.No.1335 of 1982 for a declaration of the first appellant's possessory title and injunction. This was subsequently, transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode before whom the former suit was pending and numbered as O.S.No.290 of 1985. Before, CSI came into existence the Company incorporated under the English Companies Act known as London Mission Society ('LMS' in short) acquired properties in India and their mission was to spread the gospel of Christianity. When LMS wound up, all its assets were transferred to CSI. The suit property was purchased sometime in 1930 and the dispute is whether the property belong to LMS and thereafter to CSI or whether the property never belonged to LMS. The plaint in one suit is virtually the written statement in the other.

(3.) According to the appellant, the Brough Road Memorial Church was acquired out of the foreign funds of LMS and at that time one T.T. Veda Manickam of Erode was the secretary of Erode area. During his period, collections were made from the public of Erode and the suit property was constructed in the year 1935. It was managed by a separate committee consisting of prominent Indian Christians and it was used for the furtherance of the religion. The suit property was treated as a separate entity and not as LMS. Rev. Todman, who was the treasurer and representative of LMS at Erode and its Constitutional Head, directed and guided the local committee and was controlling the affairs of the Mission. After the death of Mr. Veda Manickam, the committee became defunct and there was no proper maintenance and upkeep of the property. Mr. Arivanandham, the person in whose charge the property was given also did not take care of the property. In these circumstances, Rev. Todman handed over possession of the property to the first plaintiff who was a young and enthusiastic christian and from 01-04-1961 it has been in his possession and management. When CSI was formed after LMS left, LMS's properties were transferred to CSI and Rev. Todman handed over all the LMS Properties to CSI Trust Association. The suit property was not included as it was not the Mission's property but the property constructed out of contribution of the local people of Erode. Therefore, according to the appellants at the time of transition, the suit property did not vest with the CSI, the respondent herein but only with the first appellant. He alone has been in possession of the suit property paying electric charges. No one else has any right. He leased a portion of the building to one Paul Raj for a period of one year and since the tenant sub-leased the portion, the first appellant took immediate action and filed R.C.O.P.No.100 of 1976 to evict him. The tenant locked the premises and absconded. The first appellant wanted to take possession but his ill-health prevented him. In 1982, he initiated proceedings and took possession of the premises to the knowledge of the respondents. The certified copies of execution proceedings, delivery warrant were marked as exhibits. After taking possession, the first appellant claimed the premises and is conducting classes there. Some persons, who are jealous of first appellant misrepresented the state of affairs to the Bishop and the Bishop without further enquiry had instructed the respondents to take possession of the suit property. Consequently, a complaint was lodged to the Police alleging that the first appellant had broken open the suit building. According to the appellant, the respondent was fully aware of his possession of the suit property from 1961 and therefore, he sought declaration of his possessory title and injunction.