KRISHNASAMY PILLAI Vs. ARULMIGU ADHI SAKTHEESWARASAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal and he filed the suit in O. S. No. 558/95 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Virudhachalam for permanent injunction against the respondent/first defendant and three others. The learned District Munsif having considered the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, decreed the suit as prayed for and directed the parties to bear their respective costs.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 4 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam. By the judgment and decree dated 28. 08. 1996, the learned subordinate Judge, having perused the evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit without costs. Hence the above second appeal.

(3.) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated briefly as under::-The appellant/plaintiff is the tenant of the suit property under the respondent/first defendant Temple. Originally, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's predecessors in title and they settled the property to the Temple by way of a registered Settlement Deed dated 03. 12. 1939 agreeing thereunder, to perform the charities and festivals in the first defendant temple, from and out of the income derived by cultivating the suit property. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of tenancy in the year 1948 with the first defendant temple agreeing to cultivate the land as a tenant and also to pay the rates and taxes in respect of the same and utilise the income for performing festivals in the Temple as per the conditions stipulated in the said settlement deed dated 03. 12. 1939. While so, the first defendant attempted to grant lease of the property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 in contravention of the said tenancy agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the first defendant is not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and the Plaintiff, as a tenant, is entitled to the benefits under the tenancy laws.