SUNDARI Vs. ARULMIGU VILVA VINAYAGAR TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Appellants have filed these Second Appeals against the separate decree and judgments of First Appellate Court, confirming the decree and Judgments made by the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in both the Suits are referred as appellants and the plaintiff in both Suits is referred as respondent herein.

(2.) The deceased first plaintiff namely C.K.Subramania Gurukkal filed separate Suits in O.S.Nos.279 of 1989 and 280 of 1989, as hereditary trustee of the Temple, seeking the reliefs of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property in both the Suits. During the pendency of the Suits, the previous trustee namely C.K.Subramania Gurukkal died and the respondent herein namely Palani Ananda Gurukkal, son of the above said deceased Subramania Gurukkal, has been impleaded as second plaintiff in both the Suits.

(3.) Briefly the case of the respondent avered in the Plaints and reply statements is that the Suit property in both the Suits belongs to the Temple and respondent's family is managing the Temple properties for more than 80 years. During the period of emergency the Government took over the temple administration and appointed the 'Maniam' of Cuddalore namely Mr.G.Paramasivam Chettiyar as 'Fit Person'. The appellants entered into rental agreements with him in both Suits and executed Rent deeds in favour of the 'Fit Person' in respect of the vacant site in both Suit properties, agreeing to pay the monthly rent of Rs.2/- each. The appellants in both suits have put up thatched sheds in the vacant site of the suit properties and residing with their families. The deceased first plaintiff filed an Application before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, for the relief of declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of the Temple, the Deputy Commissioner, allowed the said Application and appointed him as hereditary trustee under Section 63(1) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. Accordingly, the deceased/first plaintiff taken over the management of the temple in 1985. The appellants in both the Appeals have recognised the deceased first plaintiff as hereditary trustee. According to the respondent, both the appellants have not been regular in payment of monthly rent and hence, legal notices were issued to the appellants on 17.2.1987, demanding arrears of rent. The appellants paid a sum of Rs.125/- and Rs.110/- respectively upto February, 1987 and December 1986. Both the appellants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10/- per month from March 1987 and January 1987 respectively. Since both the appellants have not paid the entire rent, the deceased first plaintiff issued legal notice on 16.8.1988, but, both the appellants have not sent any reply. Therefore, the deceased first plaintiff filed both Suits for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the Suits, the first plaintiff died on 28.11.1993, leaving behind his only son namely Palani Anandha Gurukkal - second plaintiff in the Suits, as the sole hereditary trustee of the temple. Further the case of the respondent is that after the Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment) Act 1994, Act No.2 of 1996, the properties belong to the Temple are exempted and hence the appellants not pressed and dismissed the petitions filed under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Since the appellants have admitted the status of the respondent as hereditary trustee and paid the rent, the appellants are estopped from contending otherwise. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board is not a necessary party. The respondent is not entitled to pay any compensation for superstructures.