PERIA SEKKADU GIRAMA NARPANI MEMBAADU PODHU NALA SANGAM BY ITS PRESIDENT S. MANOHARAN Vs. SELVAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 03.02.2015 made in I.A.No.1157 of 2014 in O.S.No.247 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvotriyur.

(2.) The petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.247 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvotriyur. The petitioner filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession in 'B' schedule property along with the temple and not to obstruct renovation work of the temple. The respondents filed written statement on 02.12.2014 and are contesting the suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1157 of 2014 under Order 26, Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and to file a report.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the petitioner's sangam purchased 35 ? cents of 'A' schedule property from one Dhanammal by the deed of sale dated 29.01.1959 for the benefit of residents of Periyasekkadu Village. The four vendors of the above said sale deed namely, Ayyavoo Naicker, Perumal Naicker, Bashyam Naicker and Kathavarayan Naicker of Periyasekkadu village were the Panchayathars in the Periyasekkadu Village Panchayat. The temple was constructed in a portion of the said property and a vacant space was left out in the East for future expansion and development for the benefit of residents of Periyasekkadu village. An extent of 23 cents was handed over to the Government for construction of school and the school has been constructed and it is functioning. A noon meal scheme building and a compound wall were also constructed in and around the school and remaining area is used as children's playground. In the year 2000, the temple was renovated and Kumbabhishekam and other festivals were conducted. Subsequently, village people visited the renovated temple and moneys were collected from the village. All the arrangements were made and advance were paid to Sthapathi. At that time, fifth respondent gave a complaint in Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station. The petitioner and other Panchayathars attended enquiry and produced document. In order to establish that there is a temple in the suit property, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary to note down the physical features and existence of the temple.