GNANASOUNDARY ALIAS GNASOUNDARAM Vs. VAITHIANATHA SIVACHARYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 24. 01. 1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in O. S. No. 48 of 1997, which is a suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) NIGGARD and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

(3.) PER contra, remonstrating and refuting, gainsaying and impugning the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement on various averments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: the suit property does not belong to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendant, but it belongs to Sri Sundaramurthy Vinayagar Alayam, Nigheeswaram Koilpathu, Karaikal which was founded by the ancestors of Sami Mudaliar, Govindasamy Mudaliar and Sokalinga Mudaliar and they endowed large extents of lands to the temple. They also constructed houses for accommodation of the Gurukkal performing pooja in the said temple. In the olden days, house sites were not given Cadastre numbers, but they were treated as Government lands. The suit house property was came to be occupied by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendant as Archakas to the Sundaramurthy Vinayagar Alayam and the ancestors of the plaintiffs were working in the temple as Archakas and in recognition of their service alone, they were allowed to occupy the suit property. The right to occupy is only heritable and not partible or divisible and the parties to the suit are in occupation of the suit property only in their capacity as Archakas of the said temple. The temple is not paying any remuneration to the Archakas, but in lieu of the same, the plaintiffs were permitted to occupy the suit property. The suit is bad for non impleadment of the Arulmighu Sundaramurthy Vinayagar Devasthanam, Koilpathu. The suit property is not a joint family property capable of being partitioned. The defendant in his personal capacity purchased certain lands belonging to the temple from one Govindaraju on 08. 05. 1976 and the said property also is included in the suit schedule. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.