SRI KAMPAHARESWARASWAMY DEVASTHANAM Vs. MUTHUPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1990 rendered in A.S.No.65 of 1989 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam thereby modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1989 rendered in O.S.No.124 of 1986 by the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam.

(2.) The defendant is the appellant herein. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-temple, their men, servants or anybody claiming through them, from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a lessee or from evicting the plaintiff and removing the superstructure in the suit property and for costs.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the lessee of the site bearing R.S.No.79/4 in Theradi Bazaar Street (Keela Salai) Thirubuvanam, measuring an extent of 9 feet East-West and 10 feet South-North, having entered into a Pagudhi agreement with the defendant; that lastly, on 9.3.1985, the plaintiff executed a Manai Pagudhi deed with the defendant agreeing to pay pagudhi of Rs.12/= per annum; that he is in possession of the site from October, 1983 onwards and has constructed a small shop with tiled walls on the Northern side, East and West with cement slabs and the roof was covered with asbestos sheets and running a sweet stall under the name and style of `Senthil Sweet Stall' from the year 1984; that at the time of inception of the pagudhi, there was no deed but subsequently, only on 9.3.1985, pagudhi deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant; that the suit property was assessed to tax by the Tirubuvanam Panchayat and the plaintiff was paying the tax; that the plaintiff also obtained a licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act from the town panchayat and he was also assessed to profession tax by the Panchayat and he is paying the tax; that the plaintiff as a lessee of the site is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same by running a small sweet stall from the year 1983-84 and he is also paying pagudhi to the defendant temple from the date of inception of the tenancy and thus as a lawful lessee of the site, the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the site except under due process of law and since on 16.3.1986, the Shroff of the temple with large body of men visited the suit property and threatened the plaintiff to remove the superstructure and hand over possession of the site to the temple in spite of the plaintiff agreeing to pay any enhanced pagudhi to the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit.