SELVANAYAGI AMMAL Vs. SRI SUNDARA VINAYAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the defendant and respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant herein as against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court in A.S.No.86 of 2003, dated 11.04.2005, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned trail Court in O.S.No.6325 of 1988, dated 09.08.2001, was reversed.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:- The plaintiff is the absolute owner of a land in Survey No.1696/1, measuring about 17 grounds and 925 sq.ft. in Veeraperumal Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-4. Out of the said land, an extent of 3 grounds and 802 sq.ft. was let out to one Narasimhalu Chetty and he was paying the land rent to the plaintiff temple. After his death in the year 1960, his widow Jayalakshmi Ammal was the tenant of the said piece of land, who was also paying the land rent till her death in the year 1975. In the meanwhile, the said Jayalakshmi Ammal, by a settlement deed dated 20.01.1975, settled 875 sq.ft. of land (suit property) out of 3 grounds and 802 sq.ft. in 60/1, Veeraperumal Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-4, in favour of Selvanayaki Ammal, therefore, it is claimed by the plaintiff-temple that the settlement deed executed in favour of one Selvanayaki Ammal/defendant is non-est ab initio and unenforceable in law, since the temple land cannot be alienated by a stranger. Hence, the plaintiff temple prayed for a direction to the defendant for delivery of possession of the land measuring 875 sq.ft. comprised in R.S.No.1696/1, Veeraperumal Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-4.

(3.) ON the side of the plaintiff, one Purusothaman, Chairman of the temple was examined as P.W.1 and 9 exhibits were marked as Exs.A1 to A9. On the side of the defendant, the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 and one Nagendra Rao was examined as D.W.2, and 21 exhibits were marked as Exs.B1 to 21. On the pleadings and the materials placed, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: i. Has Thiru Purushothaman got right to represent the plaintiff trust? ii. Is the suit bad for non issue of notice under Section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act? iii. Is the confirmation deed dated 25.01.1975 is valid? iv. Is the suit affected by Res Extra Commercicum? v. Is the Court fee paid correct? vi. Is the defendant liable to handover possession to the plaintiff? Vii. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?