RETHINAKUMAR Vs. ANBANATHAPURAM VAGAYARA DHARMA PAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd defendant is the appellant. The 1st respondent filed a suit for injunction and for recovery of possession of the suit property.

(2.) The case of the first respondent is that the suit properties belonged to the first respondent trust and the 1st item was leased out to second respondent and the 2nd item was leased out to the third respondent, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and the appellant, after entering into the agreement with 2nd and 3rd respondent is enjoying the 1st and 2nd items of the suit properties. It is further stated that after the second respondent gave the 1st item of the suit property to the third respondent and when the third respondent attempted to put up construction in the items 1 and 2, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.939 of 1993 for injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 herein from altering the superstructure and that suit was decreed. Similarly, the first respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.664 of 1998 against the third respondent for recovery of possession of the 2nd item of the property and that was also decreed and there are buildings bearing Door Nos.1, 1A and 2 in those two items and on the northern side of the 1st and 2nd items, there is a old Mandapam belonging to the first respondent wherein during festival times, the deity 'Parimala Ranganathar' will be taken to that Mandapam for pooja and that Mandapam is known as 'Kurangu Chavadi Mandapam' and the appellant with the help of the respondents 2 and 3 herein attempted to demolish the said Mandapam and the respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant have no right to demolish the said Mandapam and therefore, a suit was filed for injunction restraining the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 from demolishing the said Mandapam and not to put up any new construction and to demolish the new construction constructed by the appellant in that place and to hand over vacant possession of the properties to the first respondent.

(3.) The appellant alone contested the suit stating that he was not aware of the earlier suits filed by the first respondent against the respondents 2 and 3 and he was not a party to those suits and the decrees obtained in those suits are not binding on him and the suit properties are classified as 'natham' and his grand-father Rathinasabapathi Pillai was in possession of the same and the suit property was endowed for 'Thanneer Panthal Dharmam' and the superstructure in the suit property was constructed by his grand-father and the buildings became dilapidated and therefore, the appellant demolished the old building and constructed a new building and the plaintiff/first respondent has no right over the suit properties and they are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.