Madras High Court
Arumugam vs Viyasarajapuram Sivagnanamoorthy ... on 8 April, 2024
S.A.(MD).No.258 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.(MD).No.258 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5062 of 2024
Arumugam ... Appellant
Vs.
Viyasarajapuram sivagnanamoorthy Kovil,
represented by its Hugdar, Trustee and
Worshiper Narayanan Asari,
S/o.Subramaniya Asari,
Kannan Kovil Street,
Nanguneri Taluk,
Kalakkadu,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2023 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2023 on
the file of the Sub Court, Nanguneri confirming the judgment and decree dated
28.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.267 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Nanguneri.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.258 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
JUDGMENT
The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondent filed a suit
seeking recovery of possession of the site of the suit property and also for
recovery of arrears of rent and other reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial
Court by granting decree for possession. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
preferred a first appeal and the same was also dismissed. Hence, he is before this
Court.
2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property belonged to
respondent temple and the temple is represented by its trustee and worshipper. It
was claimed by the respondent that the appellant's grandfather Masana Konar
entered into lease agreement with the respondent temple on 23.02.1974, agreeing
to pay a rent of Rs.50/- per month. The agreed rent was increased from time to
time. After the death of Masana Konar, his son and the appellant's father
Veeraputhira Konar enjoyed the suit property as a lessee. The rent for suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property was enhanced to Rs.100/- from 01.11.2001. The appellant became lessee
of the suit property, after the death of Veerapathira Konar and he paid rent on
13.03.2002, in the name of Veerapathira Konar for six months and thereafter, he
failed to pay the rent to the respondent. The respondent issued a notice
terminating the tenancy and also seeking arrears of rent on 05.07.2003 and in
spite of the same, the appellant failed to hand over the possession and also pay the
arrears. Hence, the respondent was constrained to file a suit for recovery of
possession.
3. The appellant herein filed a written statement and denied the title of the
respondent over the suit property. It was claimed by the appellant that the suit
property belonged to Government and the appellant and his ancestors had been in
possession and enjoyment of the suit site by running a restaurant thereon for more
than 45 years. It was also claimed that the appellant and his predecessor in
interest had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than
statutory period and hence, prescribed title over the same. Thus, the appellant
sought for dismissal of the suit. The appellant also disputed the competency of
person, who filed the suit as a trustee of the respondent temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Before the trial Court, the trustee of the temple was examined as P.W.1
and two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. On behalf of the
respondent, 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the
appellant, one Marimuthu was examined as D.W.1 and 3 documents were marked
as Exs.B1 to B3. Two other documents were marked as Exs.X1 and X2.
5. The trial Court, on consideration of evidence available on record, came
to the conclusion that the appellant had been enjoying the suit site only as a lessee
and hence, granted a decree for possession. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2023 on the file of Sub Court, Nanguneri. The
first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the
concurrent findings, the appellant is before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit
property is a Natham Poramboke property and therefore, the respondent temple
has no right over the same. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the respondent failed to produce any document to establish
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
temple’s title over the suit property and hence, the Courts below ought not to have
granted a decree for possession in favour of the respondent temple. The learned
counsel for the appellant also submitted that the findings rendered by the Courts
below as if the appellant had been enjoying the suit property as a lessee of the suit
site is vitiated by non-consideration of evidence available on record.
7. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession based on lessor-
lessee relationship. It was the case of the respondent that originally the
grandfather of the appellant Mansana Konar entered into lease arrangement with
respondent temple on 23.02.1974 and thereafter his son and appellant's father
Veerapathira Konar enjoyed the suit site as a lessee. After the death of
Veerapathira Konar, the appellant has been enjoying the suit property as a lessee
only. In order to prove the lessor-lessee relationship, the respondent temple
produced Ex.A10 counter foils of rental receipt issued in the name of appellant's
father Veerapathira Konar and the appellant's grandfather Masana Konar. When
the appellant's father and grandfather paid rent to the respondent temple accepting
the respondent temple's right over the suit property, the contention raised by the
appellant as if respondent temple has no right over the suit property and it was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of possession etc., cannot be accepted.
Further, Ex.A1 / Adangal Extract and Ex.A2 / Natham Adangal Register would
establish the suit property is registered in the name of Sudalaimada Samy temple
in revenue records. The appellant's own witness D.W.1 clearly admitted that the
respondent temple was also known as Kannar Kovil. Therefore, both the Courts
below based on Exs.A1 and A2 and the admission of D.W.1 came to the
conclusion that the suit property belonged to respondent temple and hence, the
contention raised by the appellant as if the suit property is a Natham Puramboke
belonged to the Government is not acceptable to this Court. The Courts below on
appreciation of counter foils of rental receipt issued in favour of the appellant's
father and grandfather, rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant was a
lessee under the respondent temple. The said conclusion is based on the evidence
available on record and it is not vitiated by any perversity. The respondent
terminated the lease by issuing notice under Ex.A8 and the same was received by
the respondent under Ex.A9 / postal acknowledgement card. No argument is
advanced regarding legality or otherwise of notice to quit. It is also seen that the
appellant has not paid the rent to the respondent temple after 2002. The person
representing respondent temple not only described him as a trustee and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
described him as a worshipper of temple. In these circumstances, the Courts
below are justified in granting a decree for ejectment in favour of the respondent
temple by treating the appellant as a defaulting lessee. I do not find any question
of law much less substantial question of law to interfere with the findings arrived
by the Courts below and hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
08.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
akv
To
1.The Sub Court,
Nanguneri.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Nanguneri.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
akv
08.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
