MANJAMMAL Vs. ARULMIGU NACHADAITHAVIRTHARULIA SWAMI THIRUKOIL DEVADANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No.79 of 1974, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, who are the wife, sons and daughters respectively of one- P.K. Gurusamy Raja, are the appellants in this appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein (Temple, for short) for the recovery of a sum of Rs.60,300.69 p. with interest from out of the assests of late P.K. Gurusamy Raja in the hands of the appellants. There is no dispute that the Temple owns a tope of an extent of 85-50 acres situate in Muthusamipuram and North Devadanam villages. On 15th June, 1957, and auction was conducted for the lease of the tope for three faslis from fasli 1367 to fasli 1369 and in that auction deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja was the highest bidder for Rs.20,000 and he executed a lease deed containing certain terms and conditions, which need not be noticed in detail for purposes of this appeal. Subsequently, for faslis 1370 to 1372 (1st July 1960 to 3oth June, 1963), deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja became the lessee on payment of lease rent of Rs..20,000. Some time prior to the expiry of that lease, the Temple is stated to hae agreed to lease out the tope for a further period of three years from 1st July, 1963 and the lessee P.K. Gurusamy Raja claimed that he paid a sum of Rs.5,000 on 15th August, 1963 and another- sum of Rs.5,000 on 11th October, 1963 towards the lease and on the basis that a concluded contract of lease had thus come into existence, he also instituted O.S.No.55 of 1963, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, for a declaration that the contract relating to the tope was valid and that he was not liable to be evicted and for an injunction restraining them from holding an auction of the tope. The Temple resisted the suit contending that there was no concluded contract of lease in favour of deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja from 1st July, 1963 as claimed by him and that he was also not entitled to any protection under the tenancy legislations. In "that suit, it was found that deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja had established that there was a fresh concluded contract for the lease of the tope for a period of three years from 1st July, 1963. Though that finding sufficed for the disposal of the suit, the learned Subordinate Judge, after referring to the definition of a "cultivating tenant" under Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955 and the repeal of the provisions of that Act by Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, 57 of 1961, further held that under S.51 of Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, a tope was exempt and that (sic) only if the provisions of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants- Protection Act would not apply. In accordance with the decree granted in that suit, deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja continued to be a lessee of the tope till about 30th June, 1966. Later, deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja took the tope on lease for faslis 1377 to 1379 (1st July, 1967 to 30th June, 1970) on payment of a lease rent of Rs.23,000 subject to certain conditions enumerated in the lease deed. One of the conditions was that 250 coconut saplings should be planted every year and handed over to the temple on the expiry of the lease period. According to the temple, it was felt that the lease rent of Rs.23,000 was low and though the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, refused to accord sanction for this subsequently, the lease in favour of deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja was approved for fasli 1377 only on an annual lease rent of Rs.27,000. The Temple claimed that when the Deputy Commissioner camped at Devadanam on 13th October, 1968, deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja orally agreed to pay an enhanced lease rent of Rs.27,000 from fasli 1377. The case of the Temple was that for faslis 1377 to 1379, the lease amount payable by deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja for the tope was Rs.2 7,000 per fasli and that after giving credit to the amounts received, there was a balance of Rs. 16,2 90-6 9 P. due from him. This claim was stated to be in time on the basis of an acknowledgment signed and part payment made by deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja on 4th April, 1971. The further case of the Temple was that when the then trustee of the Temple arranged for granting a lease of the tope for faslis 1378 to 1380 in favour of one N. Ponniah Thevar for a lease rent deed with one K. Sankarapandia Thevar for a rent of Rs.30,000 per fasli in respect of faslis 1390 to 1382, deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja instituted O.S.No. 54 of 1970, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, for an injunction restraining the Temple as well as K. Sankarapandia Thevar from interfering with his possession and obtained a decree and this resulted in deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja continuing to enjoy the usufructs of the tope. An appeal against O.S. No. 54 of 1970 was filed in A.S.No.20 of 1973, District Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai and during the pendency of that appeal, P.K. Gurusamy Rajao died and the present appellants were brought on record. However, that appeal was dismissed and the dismissal was also confirmed by this Court in S.A. No.302 of 1975. According to the Temple, for faslis 1380 to 1382, the reasonable lease rent was Rs.30,000 per year and inasmuch as the deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja and the appellants continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the tope and enjoyed the usufructs, they should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,010 for faslis 1380 to 1382, after giving credit to such payments as were made in a sum of Rs.45,990. Thus, the temple sought to recover from the appellants the balance of the lease rents for faslis 1377 to 1382 totalling to Rs.60,300. 69 p. comprised of Rs.16,290.69 p. for faslis 1377 to 1379 and Rs.44,010 for faslis 1380 to 1382.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the appellants, they contended that the claim for the balance of lease rent due- for faslis 1377 to 1.379 on the basis of Rs.27,000 per year was unsustainable as the amount specifically mentioned was only Rs.25,000 The appellants disputed their liability for faslis 1377 to 1379 and also stated that the claim was barred by limitation. In so far as the claim for faslis 1380 to 1382 was concerned, they contended that the lease rent of Rs.30,000 per year was patently unsustainable and was in disregard of the contractual rent and that certain deposits made in proceedings taken by the Temple would wipe out the claim for faslis 1380 and 1381 and that they were willing to pay a sum of Rs.23,000 for fasli 1382.

(3.) In an additional written statement, the appellants put forth the plea that deceased P.K. Gurusamy Raja deposited a sum of Rs.23,000 to the credit of O.S. No.54 of 1970, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, which had been subsequently withdrawn by the Temple and this would wipe out the arrears in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972. Referring to the later payment of Rs.23,000 under a receipt, dated 10th February, 1973, the appellant pleaded that that should go in discharge of the rent of fasli 1382, and, therefore, no amount was due.