)Seetharama Reddiar vs )Sri Sengazhani Vinayagar Koil
2021 Latest Caselaw 22880 Mad

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED :23.11.2021

                                                    CORAM

                            THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                                            S.A.No.850 of 2021
                                        and C.M.P.No.16303 of 2021
               1)Seetharama Reddiar

               2)Padmavathy                                                 ...Appellants

                                                      Vs.

               1)Sri Sengazhani Vinayagar Koil
                 Represented by its trustee Pavadai Chettiar,
                 S/o Masilamani Chettiyar
                 55, Vadamalai Ramasamy Chetty Street,
                 Panruti

               2)Dhayanidhi                                                 ...Respondents

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2021 made in A.S.No.03 of 2017, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2016 made in O.S.No.386 of 2005, passed by the District Munsif, Panruti.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Balasubramanian for S.Ganesh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment in A.S.No.3 of

2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the

judgment of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in O.S.No.386 of 2005.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants and

third respondent, seeking the relief of declaration of title, recovery of

possession and for future mesne profits.

3. The plaint averments shows that first respondent is Sri Sengazhani

Vinayagar Temple. It is an ancient temple and it is more than 150 years old. It

is managed by Trustee/Manager Arumugha Chettiyar. The suit property

belongs to first respondent temple and it has been in possession and enjoyment

of third parties on lease on varam basis. It was leased out to Konda Reddiar on

12.12.1935 and it is evidenced by a registered lease deed. The lease was for the

period of five years and annual lease amount was Rs.35/- payable on or before

26th Aipasi of every year. On failure to pay the lease amount the lessor is

entitled to take possession. Even after the expiry of the lease, Konda Reddi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis continued in possession as lessee by holding over and continued to pay the

lease amount. After the death of Konda Reddiyar, his sons Ramalinga Reddiar

and Seetharaman (First Defendant) became tenants. It is evidenced by a lease

deed executed by Ramalinga Reddiar on 18.01.1967. The annual lease payable

was Rs.750/- per month. Ramalinga Reddiar and first defendant had been in

possession as lessees. They had been paying lease amount till 2003. First

appellant/defendant is the second son of Konda Reddiar. Second

appellant/defendant is the wife of the first appellant. First defendant had

executed a settlement deed in favor of his wife. He has no right to execute a

settlement deed. Second defendant executed sale agreement to the third

defendant. Defendants colluded together and attempting to grab the property of

the temple. Therefore the suit.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement and it is contended that

there is a temple known as Sengazhani Vinayagar Temple and the claim that it

is 150 years old is not correct. It is also not correct to say that Arumuga

Chettyar was the Trustee and the Manager of the temple. The truth and

contents of the alleged lease deed dated 12.12.1935, the lease amount Rs.35/-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis are denied. The averment that Konda Reddiar was in possession and enjoyment

of the suit property is denied. The alleged increase of lease amount Rs.750 is

also denied. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit property

belong to first defendant's mother Dhanalakshmi. It was held and enjoyed by

her parents, and they permitted her to enjoy the properties. Thus,

Dhanalakshmi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as her

absolute property. After her death in 1962, there was a family partition

between the brothers of the first defendant in or about 1974. The patta of the

suit property was in the name of first defendant's brother. After partition the

first defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit properties as its absolute

owner. Thus, he acquired title by possession also. Therefore the suit has no

merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Panruti

framed the following issues:

i)Whether the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's temple?

ii)Whether the first defendant is estopped from denying the title of the

plaintiff in the suit property?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

iii)Whether the lease deed dated 12.12.1935 is true and came into force?

iv)Whether the claim of the defendants 1 and 2 that suit property

belongs to Dhanalakshmi is true?

v)Whether the claim of the defendants 1 and 2 that they acquired title to

the suit property by adverse possession is true?

vi)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?

vii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of

possession?

viii)to what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled for?

6. During the trial PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to

P5 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined and Exhibits

B1 to B12 were marked on the side of the defendants.

7. On considering the rival submissions, the learned District Munsif,

Panruti, found that first defendant's brother admitted the title of the plaintiff in

the suit property and that he came as a lessee in the suit property and the

defendants have not produced any evidence to show that the suit property

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis belongs to Dhanalakshmi. In this view of the matter, the learned District

Munsif, Panruti, dismissed the suit in O.S.No.386 of 2005. Appellants filed

appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2017 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti. The

learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti on considering the evidence, confirmed the

judgment of the learned District Munsif, Panruti and dismissed the appeal.

Challenging the said judgment and decree, this Second Appeal is preferred.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that except the

lease deeds, the plaintiff has not produced any documents of title to show that

plaintiff owns the suit property. It is further submitted that in the lease deed

dated 18.10.1967, the first defendant is not a signatory and therefore this lease

deed will not bind him. Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit

property for several long years and therefore they acquired title to the suit

property by adverse possession. The suit for declaration of title and recovery of

possession is not filed within time and it is barred by limitation. On these

grounds, the judgments of the Courts below are challenged.

9. There are two lease deeds filed in the form of Exhibit A1 and A3.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Exhibit A1 lease deed dated 12.11.1935 executed between Arumugha Chettiar

and Konda Reddiar. Konda Reddy is the father of the first defendant and his

brother Ramalinga Reddiar. When one enters into a lease agreement, it goes

without saying that the title of the lessor is admitted. Subsequently on

18.10.1967 there was another lease deed executed between Ramalinga Chettiar

and Ramalinga Reddiar, the brother of the first defendant. It reinforces the

claim that the lessor namely Sri Sengazhani Vinayagar temple is the owner of

the suit property. Defendants set up independent claim to the suit property. It is

specifically pleaded in the written statement that first defendant's mother

Dhanalakshmi was given this property by her parents. After death, there was a

partition in the family and the suit property came into the hands of the first

defendant. It appears that there is absolutely no material produced in support of

this case of the defendants. When the first defendant denies the lease deed

dated 18.10.1967, he should have examined his brother Ramalinga Reddiar.

Ramalinga Reddiar is alive. However, the defendants have not chosen to

examine Ramalinga Reddiar.

10. There appears some mutation in the revenue records in the name

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the defendants. Mere change of name in the revenue records will not confer

any title, in the absence of there being a clear evidence to prove the title. The

evidence available in this case clearly shows that Konda Reddiar, after him his

sons Ramalinga Reddiar and the first defendant have been enjoying the suit

property only as lessees under the plaintiff's temple. When they are enjoying

the suit property as lessees, they cannot set up any title on the basis of claim of

adverse possession in the suit property. A lessee's possession will not become

adverse possession contrary to the interest of true owner. That apart, there is no

specific pleadings in the written statement required to establish plea of adverse

possession. Thus, this Court finds that both the Courts below have properly

analyzed the evidence and rightly decreed the suit. There is no substantial

question(s) of law involved in this Second Appeal to entertain. Therefore, the

judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti in A.S.No.3 of 2017

confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in O.S.No.386

of 2005 are confirmed.

11. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23.11.2021

ep

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J,

ep

S.A.No.850 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.16303 of 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis