ARULMIGHU THIAGARAJA SWAMI DEVASTHANAM Vs. R RAMADASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders dated 22/8/2003 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur in I. A. No. 112 of 2003 in O. S. No. 60 of 1996; I. A. No. 113 of 2003 in O. S. No. 266 of 1996 and I. A. No. 141 of 2003 in O. S. No. 69 of 2001, allowing the Petitions filed by the First Defendant under Or. 14 Rule 2 (b) C. P. C ordering to take up the issue of maintainability of the Suits as the Preliminary Issue. The Plaintiff Devasthanam - Arulmighu Thiagaraja Swami Devasthanam is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the owner of 26,974 Sq. Ft in T. S. Nos. 588 to 594 within the Thiruvarur Municipal limits. The Suit locality is known as Pavadai Thoppu in Thanjavur Road, Tiruvarur. The Suit Property was endowed to the Abisheka Kattalai of the Plaintiff's Devasthanam under Inam Title Deed No. 951. The Acquisition proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Gazette dated 26. 11. 1986 would also show that the Suit Property belongs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff Devasthanam was given Paguthi portions of the Property to the Defendants. One Ramanathan Chettiar of Devakottai was a Lessee of the Suit Property and other Properties under the Plaintiff's Devasthanam from the year 1950 under a Registered Lease Deed dated 7/12/1951 for a period of five years. The said Ramanathan Chettiar was in arrears of rent to Plaintiff Devasthanam and hence, a Suit was filed against him in O. S. No. 159 of 1975 before the District Munsif, Tiruvarur and the same was decreed. After the decree in O. S. No. 159 of 1975, the Plaintiff Devasthanam took possession of the property from Ramanathan Chettiar on 1/2/1975. Earlier, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit against Ramanathan Chettiar and M/s. Raman and Raman in O. S. No. 304 of 1959 before the District Munsif, Tiruvarur for recovery of possession of the Suit Properties and others and the same was compromised between the parties. As per the compromise, Ramanathan Chettiar should execute a Regular Lease Deed to the Temple on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- for a period of five years and in case of failure, the Suit shall stand decreed as prayed for. Ramanathan Chettiar did not execute the Lease Deed as per the compromise. Therefore, the Plaintiff took possession of the property on 01. 02. 1975. The said Ramanathan Chettiar had sub-leased the Suit Property to several persons and that he was never in actual possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Ramanathan Chettiar did not have any connection with the property after 1975. The Defendants claim to be in possession under the said Ramanathan Chettiar, who himself has no right over the Suit Property. The Defendants are bound to hand over the possession. Hence, the Plaintiff Devasthanam has filed the Suit to pass a decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and alternatively praying for Declaration that the Plaintiff Devasthanam is the owner of the property and also the Defendants are not the Tenants under the Plaintiff. Suits were also filed for removal of super structure put up by the Defendants and for delivery of vacant possession.

(3.) IN all the Three Suits, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that Ramanathan Chettiar had leased out Door No. 23 to one M/s. Raman and Raman on rent and was collecting the Rent. Similarly, Ramanathan Chettiar had leased the other properties with super structure thereon to the other Defendants. The Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective portion. The Defendants claimed to be in possession of the Suit Properties tracing their title through the Sale Deed. The Defendants have interalia contended that the Temple has no right and the Temple has lost its rights over the Suit Properties.