LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-751

ARULMIGHU CHIDAMBARESWARAR DEVASTHANAM, ARULMIGHU CHIDAMBARESWARAR VAHAIRA KOIL BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. TAMIL NADU WATER, DRAINAGE BOARD, REP THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Decided On April 27, 2009
Arulmighu Chidambareswarar Devasthanam, Arulmighu Chidambareswarar Vahaira Koil By Its Executive Officer Appellant
V/S
Tamil Nadu Water, Drainage Board, Rep Through Its Executive Engineer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the above suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 88,958/- with subsequent interest or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the schedule properties from the defendant.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the schedule properties belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant applied for permission to dig a well and construct a overhead tank and pump-shed in the schedule properties and that permission was granted by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madras, on condition that the defendant should pay the the value fixed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and the defendant accepted the condition and took possession of the schedule properties on 12.01.1987. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, fixed valuation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per Cent and communicated the value of 71-1/2 Cents to the defendant and directed the defendant to pay the same. The defendant refused to pay the same stating that the amount fixed by the Commissioner is on the higher side. Therefore, a suit was filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs afore stated.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement denied that he accepted the condition proposed by the Commissioner for handing over the possession of the land and the land was handed over to them by the Trustees without any condition and the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madras, has valued the land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre and if that value is accepted the value of the suit properties would be Rs. 21,450/- and they are not liable to pay the value fixed by the Commissioner and it is the further contention that there were no completed contract between the parties thereby the defendant has to pay Rs. 1000/- per Cent.