MOHAMMED YOUSUFF Vs. BALAGANAPATHY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 7/1993 on the file of the Court of subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The second defendant in o. S. No. 259/1989 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, nagapattinam, is the appellant herein. The defendants' defence before the Courts below have been negatived on the ground that the patta issued in the name of the plaintiff-temple by the Settlement Tahsildar under The Tamil Nadu minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, is valid.

(2.) THE short facts of the case of the plaintiff, Sri balaganapathy Temple at Nagore, for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-

(3.) THE first defendant has filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff has to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. This defendant is not aware of the assignment of patta infavour of the plaintiff and also about the appeal and revision filed by the second defendant. The plaintiff never claimed any right in respect of the suit property against this defendant. If patta has been granted infavour of the plaintiff-temple then the plaintiff ought to have filed an application before this defendant even in the year 1978 for transferring the property tax infavour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff without resorting to the above said recourse cannot ask for an order of mandatory injunction in the suit. The second defendant has filed relevant documents to show his right over the suit property before this Defendant. Only on the basis of the documents produced by the second defendant, the assessment of tax was transferred in the name of the second defendant. If the plaintiff produces relevant documents infavour of him then this defendant is always ready to change the assessment infavour of the plaintiff. This defendant has no objection to transfer the assessment of tax infavour of the plaintiff from the second defendant, after getting legal consultation. A suit for mandatory injunction is liable to be dismissed with costs.