VENU NAIDU Vs. G. MYTHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the original suit are the appellants before this Court in this Second Appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belongs to his paternal uncle Ananda Naidu who got the property by way of grant from the Government. In the suit property, the plaintiff's father and plaintiff's paternal uncle put a small hut and enjoying the same. The plaintiff's paternal uncle died intestate as a Bachelor. After his death, the entire property came into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's father. After the death of plaintiff's father in the year 1979, the plaintiff and his brother Munisamy are in possession and enjoyment of the property jointly. The Natham patta has been issued in the name of the plaintiff. During the lifetime of the plaintiff's father, the suit property was let out to one Babu. He was permitted to put a thatched house. Later, Babu vacated the property and handed over the possession to the plaintiff. The first defendant has no right whatsoever over the suit property. He forcibly evicted the plaintiff through his men and agent. The complaint given to the police went in vein. Despite several request made to the first defendant to handover the suit property, he has not handed over the property to the plaintiff but had leased it out to the 2nd defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.200.00. Therefore, suit for declaration to declare the rights of the plaintiff and mandatory injunction, directed the 2nd defendant to vacate the suit property and handover the vacant possession.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant, the appellants herein had contended that the suit property was owned by Sri Muthalamman Temple situated at Udayendram Village. The Temple Authorities leased out the property to one Babu, 20 years ago on conditions that he should put up the construction on the vacant land. The cost of construction will be adjusted from the monthly rents. After expiry of the lease period of 20 years, Mr.Babu should vacant the suit land and handover the land along with building to the Temple Authorities. Accordingly, on expiry of 20 years, Babu vacated and handed over the suit property to the Temple Authorities. Thereafter, the suit property was leased out to one Harikrishnan for the period of 2 years. On expiry of the said lease period, it was leased out to one Nagaraj for a period of one year. Then, it is leased out to the 2nd defendant for a period of 1 1/2 years. On expiry of the lease period, the 2nd defendant has handed over the suit property to the Temple Authorities. The suit property is owned by "Sri Muthalamman Temple". Superstructure was constructed by Babu. After expiry of the lease period, the 2nd defendant who was the last lessee has handed over the possession of the suit property to the Temple Authorities. The suit was never been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Further, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely Sri Muthalamman Temple and the valuation of the property is also not properly assessed. The Court Fee paid is not correct.