SUNDARESAN Vs. A M DHARMARAJA TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein/A. M. Dharmaraja temple, Tiruvannamalai (hereinafter referred to as the 'temple') represented by its Fit Person filed a suit in O. S. No. 1495 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, as against the appellants herein and others seeking to declare the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and grant permanent injunction against the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, to grant permanent injunction against the 7th defendant/2nd respondent herein from registering any document in respect of the suit property executed by the defendants and their men and to direct the defendants to pay the costs to the plaintiff, by specifically pleading that the suit property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff/Temple under the total control of the HR & CE Board which manages the temple and its properties through Fit persons appointed from time to time and that the defendants by posing themselves as Trustee/Poojaris of the Temple are claiming title against each other. During the 2nd week of October 1994, the defendants attempted to trespass and alienate the suit property and such attempt was with great difficulty thwarted by the plaintiff. Despite the fact that the Temple and its properties are under the control of HR & CE Board and managed by the plaintiff/Fit Person appointed by the Board, the defendants are attempting to interfere with the suit property by preventing the fit person to manage the affairs; hence, the suit.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants-3 to 6. It is specifically stated therein that the suit property and other properties belonging to the temple are only in the hands of defendants 2 to 6, who inherited from their forefathers the trusteeship and services as poojaris which continue for more ten decades. In respect of the properties of the temple, defendants 2 to 6 and their forefathers in their capacity as trustees-cum-poojaris of the temple perfected title by adverse possession. As on the date of the plaint, the properties are in possession and enjoyment of defendants-2 to 6 and no fit person has been appointed for the said temple by the Government or HR&CE Board, which has no locus standi or power to take over either the temple or its properties. In respect of 7th defendant/District Registrar, who is a formal party, no notice has been issued under Section 80 CPC. At any rate, the suit is not maintainable in law.

(3.) The trial court, after considering the case of either side in the light of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit by judgment dated 15.12.2009. The appeal filed by the aggrieved defendants in A. S. No. 15 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, came to be dismissed on 21.09.2011; hence, the present Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments of the courts below.