SOMASUNDARA REDDIAR (DIED) Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.29 of 1989 before the District Munisf Court, Kovilpatti for declaration and permanent injunction over 2 items of suit schedule properties. The suit was decreed with regard to the 1st item and dismissed with regard to the 2nd item by the trial Court. The defendants 1 to 3 filed A.S.No.294 of 1994 before the District Court, Tuticorin with regard to the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff for the 1st item. The plaintiff filed cross appeal, challenging the dismissal of the suit with regard to the 2nd item. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the cross appeal filed by the plaintiff resulting in dismissal of the suit in entirety. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally gifted to the Pandarams who were trustees of Arupathu moovar Madam in Kalugumalai by Jamindar of Ettayapuram. According to the plaintiff one Veerappa Pandaram and others owned the properties as haqdars of the temple Madam. The plaintiff had further contended that the said gift was made to the Pandarams personally for doing Dharma and service in the Madam and the gift was never intended for the Mutt. The plaintiff had contended that the said trustee of Arupathu moovar Madam namely, Veerappa Pandaram and others suffered a decree in O.S.No.551 of 1904 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. In execution of the decree, the schedule mentioned property was sold in Court auction in E.P.No.195 of 1923. The plaintiff's father Sennappa Reddiar and his brother Sundaram Reddiar jointly purchased the 1st schedule property and the sale was confirmed by the Court and sale certificate was issued on 10/11/1923. The plaintiff further contended that the brothers took delivery of the 1st schedule property and continued the service of Dharma by themselves and by engaging Managers for performing the services. The said Sundaram Reddiar had died issueless and the plaintiff's father Sennappa Reddiar continued in the exclusive possession and performed the services and Dharma. After the death of Sennappa Reddiar, the plaintiff became the owner of the schedule mentioned properties and continued to enjoy the same as exclusive holder. He further contended that he is doing the service and Dharma by himself. He further contended that the defendants 4 and 5 were interested in the management of schedule mentioned property at one point of time and by mistake their names have been wrongly entered in some of the records as though they are the haqdars of the schedule mentioned properties and the Mutt. The plaintiff further contended that he is entitled to hold the property as its title holder and the trustee of the Dharma and service attached to it. The plaintiff further contended that he is the owner of the property and trustee of the private trust (Katalai). According to the plaintiff, the defendants belonging to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department are attempting to take over the management and appoint trustees for the scheduled mentioned properties. Hence, the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.