ARULMIGHU NEELAKANDA PILLAIYAR KOIL AANTHAL PERAVURANI TALUK PATTUKKOTAI MUNSIF Vs. S R ARUNACHALAM CHETTAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL against the Decree of the District Judge, Thanjayur, dated 9.11.1993 in APPEAL Suit No. 168 of 1992 preferred against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukkotai dated 9.3.92 in Original Suit No. 44 of 1983. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:- (i) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that the appellant temple cannot maintain the above suit for recovery of rent arrears from the respondent on the basis of the decision reported in 84 L.W. applying the principles laid down in 92 L.W. 376 and 93 L.W. 707 when admittedly the respondent became the tenant under the Appellant's tempte in the year 1974 having purchased the superstructure from the erstwhile tenant much after the notified date" (ii) Whether Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that by virtue of the provisions of Act 26 of 1963, the Appellant Temple has lost right to recover the rent from the respondent when the respondent himself has admitted the joint patta and also the payment of rents from 1974 to 1979 to the Appellant's temple"

(2.) HEARD Mr. S. Thiruvangadasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the Second Appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the defendant, the suit property is Minor lnam as defined in Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, that it vested with the State Government and that the plaintiff temple has been asked to establish the right it has got in the suit site and that the defendant who is the owner of the superstructure is also entitled to the land and that the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of arrears of rent as if it is still the owner of the land.