NACHAYEE AMMAL Vs. VENUGOPALAKRISHNASWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The plaintiffs are the appellants.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed the suits for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/temple from leasing out the suit property in public auction.

(3.) The common case of the plaintiffs in both the suits is that the suit property belonged to the temple and the same was leased out to one Nachayee Ammal, plaintiff in OS.No.1197/1983, under the registered lease deed dated 30.7.1943 and to one M. Sundaram, plaintiff in OS.No.1198/1983, under the lease deed, dated 11.7.1933 on annual cash rent. Apart from the cash rent, the tenants have to deliver certain number of coconuts and ripe mangoes to the temple. The plaintiffs are entitled to raise crops as they like in the lands and they have been enjoying the suit property as tenants and have been paying the rent as agreed and the rents have also been increased periodically and the rent paid by Nachayee Ammal prior to the fling of the suit in 1982 was Rs.1,150/- per year and the rent paid by M. Sundaram, prior to the filing of the suit in 1982 was Rs.920/-. The plaintiffs claimed that they are cultivating tenants and entitled to the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The defendant/temple arranged to lease out the property on 30.6.1983 in public auction to get more rent and therefore, they field the suits.