ARULMIGU THIRU KANDASAMY THIRUKOIL Vs. KOTHANDARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have arisen from the common judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, made in A. S. Nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 1991, which arose on the dismissal of the three suits filed by the appellant herein in O. S. Nos. 761, 760 and 759 of 1987 respectively.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 759/87 is as follows: the plaint Schedule mentioned properties belonged to the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff has been paying kist. The suit properties along with certain other properties were leased out, and lease amounts were received from the respective lessees. Apart from paying rent, they are also bound to do certain welfare work relating to the temple. Now, the suit property is in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant got possession from various lessees, who do not have any right to do so. The defendant as a lessee, has not done any welfare work relating to the temple. Apart from that, she has not paid the rental as agreed by her. Under the circumstances, the defendant lost her rights as lessee. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

(3.) THE defendant resisted the suit by stating that though four items are mentioned in the Schedule, the defendant is claiming right only in respect of items 1 and 2; that those items are not properly described in the plaint; that items 1 and 2 and other properties originally belonged to one Muthukumarasamy Gurukkal; that he married one Sornammal; that they had no issues; that after the death of Sornammal, he had the assistance of one Seshadri Gurukkal, who was then aged 11 years; that he was brought up by Muthukumarasamy Gurukkal and was given in marriage to one Padmavathi Ammal who is the defendant herein; that Muthukumarasamy Gurukkal executed a Will on 12. 12. 1973; that it was a registered one; that pursuant to the Will, 'b' Schedule property came to the hands of the defendant; that she was cultivating the lands; that she gave the first item measuring 1. 34 acres, to one Munusamy Naidu; that now, the first item is with him; but, he was not added as party in this suit; that she and the predecessor-in-title and Munusamy Naidu were in possession and enjoyment of items 1 and 2; that since they were in enjoyment for more than 50 years, the plaintiff is estopped from making any claim over the same; that they paid kist; that she is not a lessee as alleged by the plaintiff, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.