K. R. S. KALADEVI Vs. M. MAYANDI SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 to 4 in both the appeals filed the suit in O.S.No. 48 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 to 7 in the suit, who are the appellants in A.S(MD)No.138 of 2015, from in any way alienating, encumbering and putting up constructions in the suit property and for costs. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.225 of 2015 and the defendants 4 to 7 in the suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.138 of 2015. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree, both are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For the purpose of clarity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

(2.) (i) The case of the plaintiffs in brief as per the plaint is that the suit property originally belongs to one Muthu Thevar and the same was purchased by one Ammayappan Poosari, who was then the Trustee and Poojari of the Angala Parameswari Sonaiya Swami Temple, Arappalayam, Madurai, and the said Poojari Ammayappan purchased the suit property in the name of the temple under registered sale deed, dtd. 7/7/1951, from the original owner Muthu Thevar. From the date of purchase, the property belongs to the said Angala Parameswari Sonaiya Swami Temple. Except the temple, no others have any right and title whatsoever to deal with the property. The Town Survey Register also stands only in the name of the temple represented by its Trustee and the Register given by Madurai Corporation also shows that the property stands in the name of the temple. The said Angala Parameswari Sonaiya Swami Temple belongs to about 600 families of Panaiyur Rajakula Agamudiyar Community, who are settled at Panaiyur, Malaipatti, Sakkimangalam, Nagamalai Pudukkottai, Kattamankottai, Thenoor etc. They have been worshipping and administering the temple and the properties belonging to the temple. The plaintiffs belong to the said community and they were members of the temple committee. The temple at present in the administration of the defendants 1 to 3 and they have only right to administer and manage the temple and the properties and they do not have any right to alienate or in any way deal with the properties of the temple. The plaintiffs themselves had held various posts in the temple committee and Tiruppani committee.

(3.) (i) The brief facts regarding the defendants 1 to 3 are that admittedly the suit property originally as a vacant site and the same was purchased by one Ammayappan Poosari from one Muthu Thevar under the registered sale deed, dtd. 7/6/1951, for valuable consideration in the name of the Angala Parameswari Sonaiya Swami Temple. The said temple belongs to Panaiyur Rajakula Agamudaiyar Community, who have settled in several places as stated in the plaint. The married male member of the family would become the member of the temple committee. The President, Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Committee Members would be elected among them once in 5 years. The duly elected President and Secretary have to act and proceed and administer all the affairs of the temple. The first plaintiff Mayandi @ Samikkannu Servai was the Ex- President of the temple committee during the period of 1996 to 2001. The second plaintiff Alagu Servai was the Ex-Vice-President of the temple committee during the year 1997-2001 and he was the Secretary of the temple during the year 2001-2002. After that, Alagu Servai resigned his secretary post for the reason that he was unable to serve the temple. The Mayandi Servai was a member of the Advisory committee of the temple Thiruppani during 2001-2007. The suit property was leased out to one Rajendran as a vacant site for running a school even as early as in 1957. The said lease was periodically renewed from time to time for a long period. The lessee Rajendran put up constructions with the consent of the lessors. Even after his death, the lease was continued.