SYED AHMED HUSSAIN Vs. ARULMIGHU EKAMBARESWARAR THIRUKOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants in the suit for recovery of possession are the appellants. The suit filed by the respondent temple was decreed by the trial Court and the First Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against them, the defendants have come up with these Second Appeals.

(2.) According to the respondent temple, the suit property belonged to it and the same was let out to the appellant on monthly basis. The appellant was allowed to put up a temporary structure in the suit site and as per understanding the appellant should not put up any permanent super structure in the suit site. It was averred by the respondent temple that the appellant was in arrears of rent from October 2002 to 2004 and hence, the respondent temple issued a notice terminating tenancy by end of October 2004. The notice was acknowledged by the appellants and they came out with untenable reply. It was also averred by the respondent that the appellant who entered the property as tenant of site was not entitled to deny the title of the respondent. On these pleadings the respondent sought for recovery of possession of vacant site after removal of the super structure put up by the appellants. The respondent sought for recovery of arrears of rent and recovery of damages for use and occupation.

(3.) The appellants herein filed a written statement denying the right of the respondent temple over the suit site. It was their case that the superstructure in the suit site was put up on the property for the past 70 years ago and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was also averred that the suit site was an inam and after coming into force of Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act, the Settlement Thasildar issued a joint patta in the name of the appellants as well as the respondent temple, as the superstructure in the suit land was put up by the appellant or his predecessor in interest.