ARULMIGU VEDHARANYESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM Vs. VENKATACHALAM (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 23/4/2012, in O.S. No.5 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam. The Plaintiff in the Suit in O.S. No.5 of 2006, which is a Religious Institution represented by its Executive Officer, is the Appellant in the above Appeal.

(2.) The Appellant filed the Suit for Recovery of Possession after removal of existing superstructure by granting a Decree for Mandatory Injunction and for a consequential Permanent Injunction against Defendants from making any or continuing further construction in the Suit properties.

(3.) The Suit properties are described in 12 Items measuring an extent of 13.07 Ares comprised in different Survey Numbers situated in Vadakkattalai Village, Vedaranyam Taluk. It is the case of the Appellant that Arulmigu Vedaranyeeswaraswamy Devasthanam is the absolute owner of the entire extent of 13 Acres and 7 Cents, having been given Ryotwari Patta under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) in recognition of the fact that both warams being vested with Plaintiff Devasthanam. It is the case of Plaintiff/Appellant that a Sale Deed was executed by Defendants 2 and 3 on 15/9/1998 in favour of 1st Defendant claiming to be the Kudivaramdhar of the property belonging to the Temple and that the validity of the registration of the Sale Deed is an issue in the Suit in O.S. No.601 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. It is further submitted that the Representation of the Plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar not to register any document in respect of the property of Plaintiff is again an issue at the instance of the 1st Defendant and a Complaint before Consumer Forum, Nagapattinam, in COP 58 of 2000 is filed. It is stated that an Appeal is pending before the State Consumer Forum as against the direction of District Consumer Forum. Since the 1st Defendant claimed independent Title and started putting up construction in the Suit property in defiance of the Plaintiff's Title, the Plaintiff came forward with the Suit for Recovery of Possession by treating the First Defendant as a Trespasser. It is stated that the cause of action arose just 10 days before the Suit when Defendants began to make constructions.