NAGAMMAL Vs. VEERAGHAVA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2001 passed in A.S. No. 13 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 passed in O.S. No. 741 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvellore, this second appeal is focused. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

(2.) Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(3.) Per contra, the defendant, 1 and 2 filed the written statement refuting and challenging, impugning and questioning the averments/allegations in the plaint. The plaint is nothing but a pack of lies fraught with falsity and mendacity and it could only be treated as a load of baloney. The defendants herein have beer, in possession and enjoyment of only one extent of property by constructing their respective houses. It is highly preposterous on the part of the plaintiff to project and portray, describe and delineate as though pending the earlier litigation, the defendants herein trespassed into the adjacent vacant area etc. The defendants are occupying only the kuttai poromboke area and not the property as claimed to have been conferred in favour of the plaintiff temple. While filing the plaint, the crucial document, namely EX. A1 was not filed, which was in violation of Order VII Rule 14(1) and (2) of CPC. The crucial document based on which the cause of action was projected, was not filed and it was fatal to the case of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below failed to take note of the same, but simply decreed the suit. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff Devasthanam is the owner of the suit property, but absolutely there is no smidgeon or molecular extent of evidence to establish the same. Accordingly the learned counsel for the defendants would pray for the dismissal of the suit.