VELUR VAITHINATHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM VAITHISWARANKOIL Vs. ARUMUGHA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against the interlocutory order passed under a common judgment by learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram on the 3rd December, 1975 wherein he rejected the interlocutory application of the applicant to pass an order of temporary injunction and also to appoint a receiver pending disposal of the suit to take charge of the crops on the suit lands in this and future faslis, harvest the same through the respective defendants, and realise and secure the plaintiff's share of the lease paddy and deliver the same to the plaintiff.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point involved in these civil miscellaneous appeals it is necessary to state a few facts. The appellant is a public trust and the respondents are cultivating tenants under the appellant trust. By an order dated 19th January 1974 in I. A. Nos. 58 and 61 of 1974 in O. S. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1974 an interim Receiver was appointed and that was appealed against Nos. 76 and 77 of 1974 and pending those appeals interim injunction was obtained as a result of which the crops were cut and carried away by the appellants therein namely the tenants. Thereupon the main appeals came up for final disposal before N. S. Ramaswami, J. on 22nd March 1974. It was reported that the appeals were not pressed and therefore they were dismissed. This necessitated the appellant before me to prefer I. A. No. 30 of 1975 in O. S. 9 of 1974 and I. A. No. 33 of 1975 in O. S. No. 10 of 1974 for similar reliefs during the pendency of the suits. By an order dated 22nd January 1975. the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram appointed a Receiver. As against that civil miscellaneous appeals nos. 102 and 148 of 1975 were preferred and the same strategy was adopted by the tenants, in that having obtained interim orders and armed with them, the crops were cut and carried away and therefore ultimately the matter came up before Gokulakrishnan, J. on 7th July, 1975. The learned Judge has observed as follows:--"in view of the fact that the interlocutory applications have themselves become infructuous and since it is open to the respondents to take out separate applications for the purpose of appointing a receive the crops that have to be raised in the suit lands both the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. " thereupon two other suits were filed that is O. S. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1975. Thus in all the 4 suits namely O. S. No. 9 of 1974, O. S. No. 10 of 1974, O. S. No. 91 of 1975 and O. S. No. 92 of 1975 interlocutory applications were taken out for the respective reliefs aforementioned. The learned Subordinate Judge held in a lengthy order that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The main basis on which he denied the reliefs as it appears by a reading of the order, is the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kazimar periya Pallivasal v. K. A. S. Arumugam, 88 Mad LW 584: (AIR 1976 Mad 45 ).

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, in the appeals before me, Mr. Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant, raised the following points. First of all he urges that this is a case in which the trust is being driven from pillar to post and every time by adopting some ingenious method or other, the tenants have been able to achieve their ends without measuring the due share that the appellant-trust is entitled to. Therefore, according to him this is fit case in which the court should lend its helping hand to a trust which for none of its fault is being deprived of its legitimate rights. Secondly he submits that by the order of gokulakrishnan. J. dated 7th July 1975 it would not mean that the Receiver appointed earlier in I. A. Nos. 30 and 33 of 1975 in O. S. Nos. 9 and 10 for 1974 respectively, was in any way discharged and it is not open to the respondents to contend that the civil miscellaneous appeals themselves were dismissed. Therefore, the order appointing Receiver would stand vacated. If that be so, there is no need to ask for the very same relief. However, to put the matter beyond controversy, the present interlocutory applications under which these civil miscellaneous appeals arise were taken out with an added prayer for injunction. In fact to avoid any technical plea being put against the appellant the later two suits came to be filed for declaration and also for perpetual injunction. Viewed in this light the court below was not justified in refusing the reliefs in the first of the two applications namely I. A. Nos. 655 and 657 of 1975 and I. A. Nos. 656 and 658 of 1975 in O. S. Nos. 9 and 10 for 1975 respectively.