LA SHANMUGHA DESIKA GNANASAMBANDA PARAMACHARYA SWAMYGAL AVARGAL DHARMA ADHEENAM DHARMAPURAM Vs. N RANGASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession by both the courts below, the plaintiff has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The following averments are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The immovable property described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to Dharmapuram Adheenam Mutt, wherein "Othuvar" is permitted to do "Parayanam" and it was all along used to divine and religious purpose and was also giving training to Othuvars. In order to maintain the same, caretakers were appointed. In that way, one Subbathal and Narayanasamy Naidu were appointed as caretakers. They were carrying on duties properly at the beginning and they continued to be in possession of the property. Subsequently, they did not do their duties, for which they were appointed. On the death of the said Narayanasamy Naidu, the defendant, his son continued to occupy the said property. He was raising objections then and there for carrying on day today activities of the Mutt, for which it was brought into existence, and hence, there arose a necessity to file the suit for recovery of possession of the property from him.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the suit property never belonged to Mutt, much less to Dharmapuram Adheenam; that his father deceased Narayanasamy Naidu was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property; that pursuant to the Will executed by him on 28.2.1978, this defendant got possession of the property and from that time onwards, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same, exercising all rights of ownership over the same; that the plaintiff has suppressed the earlier suit filed by Saiva Perumakkal Peravai, a society and its office bearers, in respect of the suit property in OS Nos.614 and 779 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore against the said Narayanasamy Naidy and Subbathal for declaration of the alleged title and possession; that on contest by the said Narayanasamy Naidu, the suit was dismissed on 16.8.1968 and even AS No.134 of 1970, which arose therefrom was also dismissed by the Subordinate Court, and thus, the property did not belong to the Mutt, but it belongs to the defendant exclusively, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.