SRI KUMARAKATTALAI SUBRAHMANYASWAMI DEVASTHANAM REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE Vs. K.S. SUNDARARAJULU CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Devasthanam filed a suit against the Respondent for recovery of possession of the suit site after removal of the superstructure standing thereon. Its case was that It is the owner of the suit property a house -site situate in Mayuram municipal limits, that the site was taken on lease by one Venkatarama Naidu on 26th November 1954 for a rent of Rs. 7 -8 -0 and one bunch of coconuts for fasli from fasli 1363, that the said Venkatarama Naidu put up a superstructure in the suit site and was in enjoyment of the same until he sold the leasehold right along with the superstructure to the Defendant by a document, dated 21st October 1959, that it gave a notice terminating the tenancy and requiring the Defendant to remove the superstructure and give vacant possession of the same, to the Devasthanam, but that the Defendant has evaded to remove the superstructure and vacate the site by denying the title of the Devasthanam and also claiming benefits under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act as also the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Defendant resisted the suit contending that his vendor, Venkatarama Naidu was the owner of the property and that he was not a lessee from the Devasthanam, that he had purchased the absolute rights of his vendor in the suit site along with the superstructure and that by such purchase he has become the owner of both the site and the superstructure, The Defendant also pleaded that in any event he is entitled to the benefits under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and that he had effected improvements to the building of the value of Rs. 20,000. He also contended that the suit site is a minor inam and as the minor inam has been abolished under Madras Act XXX of 1963 the land stood vested with the Government and the Plaintiff's title has been extinguished from the date of the notification in 1965.

(2.) On these rival contentions, the trial Court found that the lease deed dated 26th November 1954 executed by Venkatarama Naidu in favour of the Devasthanam is true and that it is not vitiated by any mistake or fraud as contended by the Defendant. It also held that since the Defendant's vendor Venkatarama Naidu was only a lessee under the lease deed, dated 26th November 1954, neither Venkatarama Naidu nor the Defendant can claim permanent tenancy in respect of the suit site. It further held that the Defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act and that the Plaintiff's title to the suit site has not been extinguished under the provisions of the Madras Act XXX of 1963. In that view, it decreed the Plaintiff's suit for possession after removal of the superstructure by the Defendant.

(3.) On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court has agreed substantially with the findings of the trial Court that the Defendant or his vendor was not entitled to claim permanent tenancy in respect of the suit lands and they are not entitled to the benefits under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. It however held, disagreeing with the view taken by the trial Court, that the Plaintiff's title has become extinguished by the provisions of Madras Act XXX of 1963. In this second appeal filed by the Devasthanam the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Devasthanam's title to the suit site has become extinguished by the provisions of the Madras Act XXX of 1963.