ARULMIGHU SUNDARESWARA SWAMY THIRUKOIL Vs. K BAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.227 of 1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, is before this Court, challenging the decree and judgment dated 18.11.1994 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam made in A.S.No.365 of 1992.

(2.) THE Executive Officer of Arulmigu Sundareswara- swami Thirukoil, Neermulai, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, filed the suit for permanent injunction. THE case of the plaintiff is that all the suit properties were Community properties and owned by 49 Pattadars in the suit village. Out of the income derived from cultivation of those lands, plaintiff Temple's poojas are being performed and the Kurukkal is being paid salary. It is the case of the plaintiff that for this arrangement, there is no document. When one Sundaresa Kurukkal was appointed, the suit properties were entrusted with him. From out of the income derived from the properties, after spending for pooja expenses, he was taking his salary. This practice was continued till his death on 15.6.1985. THE first defendant was a distant relative of the said Sundaresa Kurukkal, who was assisting him. She does not know agricultural operations, but claims to be the cultivating tenant under a lease document. THE case of the plaintiff is that she cannot be a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. THE application filed by the first defendant before the authority, was not entertained. THE appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. THE Plaintiff is neither owner nor Pattadar of the suit properties and as such, the plaintiff is bound to follow the rules and regulations framed by the owner of the suit properties. After the demise of Sundaresa Kurukkal, one Kuppusamy Kurukkal was appointed. As the first defendant prevented the said Kuppuswamy Kurukkal from cultivating the suit properties, the present suit is filed to restrain her and her men from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the Plaintiff Temple.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Temple argued that the lower appellate Court has no jurisdiction to hold that the respondent herein/first defendant is a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act (Act 10 of 1969), as the appropriate authority under the said enactment is only the Tahsildar/Record Officer, and more particularly when the authorities under the Act came to the conclusion that the respondent/first defendant is not the cultivating tenant in the light of Ex.A-2 dated 31.7.1985 and Ex.A-3 dated 6.2.1986. THE learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the suit lands were community lands given to the plaintiff Temple for enjoyment alone and one Sundaresa Kurukkal, who was conducting poojas till his death in the year 1985, was in enjoyment of the same. THE said Kurukkal cultivated the said lands and from out of the income derived, he conducted poojas in the temple and the balance was taken by him towards his salary/compensation for the services rendered. THE learned counsel further submitted that after the demise of the said Sundaresa Kurukkal on 15.6.1985, the newly appointed Priest viz., Kuppuswamy Kurukkal was entrusted with the enjoyment of the suit lands and on 8.9.1995, the respondent/first defendant obstructed the cultivation with her henchmen and caused disturbance. Hence, to protect the interest of the temple, O.S.No.227 of 1985 was filed praying for injunction restraining the respondent herein/first defendant and her men from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the Plaintiff/Temple. THE learned counsel for the appellant further stated that since the possession of the Temple was proved through the Kurukkal, the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction which was erroneously upset by the first appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, the findings of the first appellate Court is contrary to the orders passed by the competent authorities under the Act and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.