Madras High Court
Vasantha Kumari vs Arulmighu Virdhagiriswaran on 10 February, 2021
SA.No.894 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.894 of 2008
1.Vasantha Kumari
2.Vasantha
3.Gajalakshmi
4.Arvudainambi
5.Anandan
6.Kumar
7.Babu
8.Jothi
9.Mageswari
10.Madhavi
11.Minor Chandraprabha
12.Minor Suryaprabha ... Appellants
(Appellants 11 and 12 are represented
by their mother viz. Madhavi as
Natural guardian)
Vs.
Arulmighu Virdhagiriswaran
Devasthanam
Repd by its Executive Officer
Sanathi Street, Vridhachalam Town,
Vridhachalam Kaspa. ... Respondent
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.
against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.102 of
2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.354
of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Ms.R.Meenal
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 19.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 31.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.354 of 2004 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.
2.The unsuccessful defendants before the Courts below are the
appellants in this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
3.The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for ejection.
4.It is not in dispute that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's
temple.
5.The defendants would put forth the case that they are the tenants
under the plaintiff's temple and on that basis would raise the defence that
the plaintiff is not entitled to evict them by way of the present civil action
and the plaintiff would have the remedy only before the appropriate
authorities under the Public Trusts Act and Cultivating Tenants Protection
Act and also would state that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the case laid by the plaintiff and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the
plaintiff's suit.
6.In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 &
A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined and
Exs.B1 to B4 were marked and Exs.C1 & C2 were also marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
7.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced
in the matter and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, the
Courts below were pleased to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff as
prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been
preferred by the defendants.
8.Considering the pleas put forth by the respective parties and the
materials available on record, it is found that the suit property had been
originally leased out by the plaintiff's temple to one Lakshmi ammal and
after her demise, the first defendant claimed to be in the occupation of the
suit property as the tenant of the plaintiff's temple and would also state that
the first defendant had obtained the necessary certificate from the plaintiff's
temple pointing to the same. However, as rightly concluded by the Courts
below, absolutely there is no acceptable and reliable materials projected on
the part of the first defendant to safely conclude that he had been legally
authorized by the plaintiff's temple to enjoy the suit property as its tenant
and in such view of the matter, the claim of the first defendant that he is in
the occupation of the suit property based on the certificate said to have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
issued by the plaintiff's temple, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner
and rightly disbelieved by the Courts below.
9.From the materials available on record, it is found that based on the
Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the first defendant in
favour of the second defendant, the suit property had been converted into
plots and it is noted that the other defendants are in the occupation of the
suit property. Noting the abovesaid position, particularly, the suit property
having not been utilised for cultivation and on the other hand, the same had
been plotted out, the plaintiff had been necessitated to initiate the
proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Cuddalore in PTA No.378
pf 2000 and from the order passed in the abovesaid proceedings by the
authority dated 06.09.2001 marked as Ex.A1, it is found that after holding
that the first defendant had no authority to convert the suit property as plots
and also not indulged in the cultivation of the suit property for several years,
accordingly, directed the eviction of the defendant from the suit property
and further noted that as regards the other occupants of the suit property, the
plaintiff's temple is to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
such view of the matter, the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff as above
stated in P.T.A.No.378 of 2000 would not in any manner ennure to the
benefit of the defendants with reference to the contention that they had been
recognized as the tenants of the plaintiff's temple qua the suit property in the
abovesaid proceeding.
10.Having noted that the first defendant has failed to establish that he
has been lawfully inducted as the tenant of the suit property by the plaintiff's
temple, it is evident that the first defendant would be disentitled to give any
authorisation to the second defendant to plot out the suit property.
Furthermore, the other tenants have also failed to establish that they had
been recognised as the tenants of the plaintiff's temple pursuant to the order
passed in Ex.A1 and on the other hand, it is found that without any authority
or permission of the plaintiff's temple, the other tenants seemed to have put
up certain constructions in the suit property and occupying the same as only
trespassers and not as the tenants of the temple as put forth by them. In
such view of the matter, in the absence of any materials projected on the
part of the defendants to safely conclude that they are the tenants of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
plaintiff's temple qua the suit property and on the other hand, the available
materials on record would only go to disclose that they are only the
trespassers, in such view of the matter, seeking for the ejectment, the
plaintiff is found to have come forward with the suit and accordingly, the
Courts below are found to be justified in granting the relief prayed for by
the plaintiff.
11.The contention has also been raised by the defendants that the civil
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and only the authorities
constituted under the Special Acts would have the authority to evict them as
above pointed out. When the defendants have failed to establish that they
had been lawfully inducted into the suit property as the tenants of the
plaintiff's temple or they had been recognised as the tenants by the plaintiff's
temple in any manner. in such view of the matter, particularly, when it is
noted that the defendants are in the occupation of the suit property without
any authority and rightly, as determined by the Courts below, they are only
the trespassers and not having any entitlement to squat in the suit property
endlessly, in such view of the matter, the civil Court has the jurisdiction to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
entertain the suit laid by the plaintiff. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction
raised by the defendants had been rightly considered and determined by the
Courts below.
12.In the light of the abovesaid factors, it is found that the Courts
below have properly and correctly appreciated the pleas put forth by the
respective parties, the materials available on record, both oral and
documentary and rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief
prayed for and accordingly, directed the eviction of the defendants from the
suit property. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the abovesaid
determination of the Courts below and in my considered opinion, no
substantial question of law is found to be involved in the second appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2007 passed in
A.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Vridhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006
passed in O.S.No.354 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif
Court, Vridhachalam, are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if
any, is closed.
Index : Yes/No 10.02.2021
Internet:Yes/No
sms
Copy to
1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam.
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
SA.No.894 of 2008
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
sms
S.A.No.894 of 2008
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
