A LAKSHMANA REDDIAR Vs. ELLINGANAICKENPATTY KUMARA KOIL SRI SUBRAMANIA SWAMI, THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE AND MANAGER MEENAKSHISUNDARA BHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment instituted by the trustee of Kumara Koil Sri Subramania Swami temple in Ellinganaickenpatty village, Sattur taluk. The case for the plaiatiff is that the suit land forms part of an inam wherein the temple owns both the warams, that the second defendant was in occupation thereof as a tenant at will, that in execution of a decree obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant the first defendant purchased the said property and was in possession of the same. During the pendency of the execution proceedings a claim was preferred on behalf of the temple alleging that the second defendant had no saleable interest therein and the property belonged to the temple but the claim was dismissed. Hence the present suit was filed for a declaration of the temple's right to the land and for delivery of possession thereof. The defence is that the temple owned only the melwaram right and the kudiwaram right had always been in the tenant of the inam lands and therefore was in the second defendant and that in any event the plaintiff was not entitled to eject the second defendant and therefore the suit would not lie.

(2.) The main questions in dispute between the parties therefore are whether the plaint temple is the owner of both the warams and even assuming it is, is the second defendant liable to be ejected therefrom. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding against the temple on both the questions but the learned Subordinate Judge reversed his decision. In my opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge misdirected himself on questions of law bearing on the said issues in arriving at his conclusion and threw wrongly the onus on defendants 1 and 2. The learned Subordinate Judge in paragraph 6 of his judgment states thus: When once it is conceded that a tenant is a kudiwaramdar paying rent or melwaram to the melwaramdar, the relationship of landlord and tenant is established between them and the burden of proving full occupancy rights will be upon the defendant.

(3.) Again in paragraph 7 of the judgment he remarks: When once it is conceded that they are occupancy tenants, according to their view, the relationship of landlord and tenant is established and the burden of proof is heavily upon the second defendant, and, after him, upon the first defendant, to prove such rights, second defendant and his father, therefore, would have come into possession of the land only under a right derived from these trustees or their predecessors-in-title. They are only tenants at will liable to be ejected at any moment by the trustees.