P.AMBICA Vs. ARULMIGU VEDHARANYESWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 made in A.S.No.45 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgement and decree dated 30.06.2010 in O.S.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedharanyam.

(2.) The suits have been laid by the plaintiff Devastanam for possession, past and future damages. Claiming title over the suit property and contending that the defendants have trespassed into the suit property illegally after the plaintiff Devastanam has taken possession of the suit property, pursuant to the execution proceedings from the erstwhile tenants Venkatachalam and Ramasamy, the plaintiff Devastanam has laid the suit against the defendants. Originally the defendants have taken a plea that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenants under the plaintiff Devastanam and therefore, the plaintiff Devastanam is not entitled to recover possession of the suit property without resorting to due process of law. However, in the additional written statement, the defendants have taken a plea that the plaintiff Devastanam is not the owner of the suit property and that the suit property belongs to Arulmigu Aeri Sri Vidhyeswarar Temple and it has been given as the Trust property of Arulmigu Aeri Sri Vidhyeswarar Temple and from the trustees of Arulmigu Aeri Sri Vidhyeswarar Temple, according to the defendants, they became the tenants of the suit property and as such the plaintiff Devastanam is not entitled to seek the recovery of possession of the suit property from them and also the other reliefs sought for.

(3.) On an analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the respective parties, the Courts below have found that the plaintiff Devastanam is entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for in the plaint and accordingly rejected the defence put forth by the defendants. Challenging the same, the present second appeals have been preferred by the defendants.