ARULMIGHU VEDARANYESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM Vs. HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction. THE trial court decreed the suit and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the sub- Judge and hence the 1st defendant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE property belongs to the 1st defendant is admitted in emphatic terms by the plaintiff, when examined as P. W. 1. THE plaintiff witnesses P. Ws. 2 and 3 also admit that the suit property belongs to the 1st defendant temple viz,, the appellant. THE documents produced in this case, which have been marked as Exs. Al, A3 and A4 to A32 would all go to show that the plaintiffs have accepted the title of the temple to the suit property. THE plaintiffs claimed to be the tenants of the suit property under the 1st defendant. THEy have paid rent to the temple, accepting the temple's title to the suit property. It is the case that the suit property was settled upon the temple by the plaintiffs grand father. But, it is not established.

(3.) IT is to be pointed out that the plaintiffs did not apply to the Tahsildar to have their names registered as'kuthagaidars'of the property. On the other hand, we find that when certain trees fell down, it is the Devastnanam which auctioned the same. The appreciation by the courts below is very rusty. The above admissions by the plaintiff and his witnesses have been thoroughly overlooked by the courts below. IT is also too much to contend that this appellant Devasthanam have gone to the extent of fabricating the documents. IT is really strange to hold that Ex. B-12 has been prepared after suit for the purpose of the case. Exs. B-10 to B-14 are all auction notices. Therefore, from an analysis, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their case. They are neither entitled to any declaration nor injunction. They have come forward with a false case. They claimed title knowing fully well that they are not entitled to claim any such right against the temple. IT is the plaintiffs, who with the help of the village officials, have concocted the documents. Therefore, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have failed miserably to substantiate their case.