Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 269 (MAD)

R. Subramaniam & Others v. K. M. Govindan

2005-02-15

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2005
Judgment :- The second appeal has been filed by the four unsuccessful respondents/defendants before the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A.S.No.95 of 1993 in and by which the said Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.428 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore viz., one Govindan and decreed the suit as prayed for. 2. The said Govindan filed O.S.No.428 of 1991 for the reliefs of declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against four defendants with the following allegations. The suit property viz., 6 cents consisting of 2718 sqft, east west 19 on the north, 53 on the south, south north 73 on the west and 76 on the east bounded by the plaintiff's other properties on the west, land of Govindan on the north, Mariamman Kovil on the east and lands of Subramaniam, Radhakrishnan and Pandurangan on the south at Uppalavadi, Sundakadu within the limit of Cuddalore Panchayat Union, originally was belonging to Natesan and Rajagopal through a registered sale deed dated 25.12.1970 obtained from one Krishnamurthy and others and thereby the said Natesan and Rajagopal were enjoying the properties including the suit property purchased by them and thereafter the said Natesan and Rajagopal partitioned the properties through a registered partition deed dated 31.7.1986 and that in that partition, the suit property and other properties were allotted to the share of Rajagopal and then on the same date, the said Rajagopal and his family members sold the suit property along with other properties through a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff herein viz., Govindan. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff Govindan alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, the defendants, without any manner of right upon the suit property and without means and with intention of extracting amounts from the plaintiffs attempted to trespass upon the suit property by saying as if the suit property belongs to Mariamman Temple of the said village. So, the plaintiff happened to file the suit. 3. The suit has been resisted by the defendants with the following allegations. The alleged purchase through sale deed dated 25.12.1970 and the alleged partition deed dated 31.7.1986 and consequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Govindan on the same date are all false and invalid. So, the plaintiff happened to file the suit. 3. The suit has been resisted by the defendants with the following allegations. The alleged purchase through sale deed dated 25.12.1970 and the alleged partition deed dated 31.7.1986 and consequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Govindan on the same date are all false and invalid. Neither the plaintiff nor his alleged purchasers were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any time. The defendants never attempted to trespass upon the suit property as alleged in the plaint. On the other hand and in fact, the suit property stands classified as "Oor natham". The defendants are trustees of Muthumariamman temple at the suit village. The temple festivals are being conducted upon the suit property. The trees standing upon the suit property are being leased out to third parties and the income is being used for the purpose of temple festivals. The suit property is in enjoyment and possession of the defendants alone as trustees of the temple. There is life fence between the suit property and the patta lands of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On trial and after examining three witnesses including the plaintiff as P.W.1 and four witnesses including the first defendant as DW1 besides marking of four documents as Exs.A1 to A4 and two documents as Exs.B1 and B2, the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore has found and come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no title and possession upon the suit property and consequently dismissed the suit. 5. On appeal by the plaintiff Govindan in A.S.No.95 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore has found and come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got title and possession upon the suit property and consequently, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif Court and decreed the suit. 6. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available for either side in the light of the judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the counsel appearing for either side in detail. The fact remains that there is no dispute between the parties upon the identity and extent of the suit property. 6. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available for either side in the light of the judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the counsel appearing for either side in detail. The fact remains that there is no dispute between the parties upon the identity and extent of the suit property. The plaintiff claims that the suit property is a private property of himself and his predecessor. The defendants claim as if the suit property is a property belonging to the temple. Likewise, it is an undisputed fact that the suit property ever stands classified as "Oor natham" in the revenue records. 7. In order to trace and show the plaintiff's title upon the suit property, the plaintiff has produced Ex.A1 which is a registered sale deed dated 25.12.1970 executed by one Krishnamurthy and others in favour of Natesan and Rajagopal, Ex.A2 viz., a registered partition deed dated 31.7.1986 between the said Natesan and Rajagopal and Ex.A3 viz., a registered sale deed dated 31.7.1986 executed by the said Rajagopal in favour of the plaintiff Govindan apart from the oral evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 and the evidence of PW2 Rajagopal, the vendor of the plaintiff and the evidence of PW3 Krishnamurthy, the vendor of the said Rajagopal PW2. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A3, I am able to see that one Krishnamurthy and others have executed sale deed in favour of Natesan and Rajagopal in respect of the suit property as well as some other properties as per Ex.A2 and the said Natesan and Rajagopal have partitioned their properties and in that partition, the suit property and two other items have been allotted to the share of Rajagopal and on perusal of Ex.A3, the said Rajagopal has sold the suit property along with other items in favour of the plaintiff Govindan. These are all registered documents of the year 1970 and 1986. Apart from Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff also has produced Ex.A4 viz., a letter written to the plaintiff by the Inspector of Natham Survey, Cuddalore. On perusal of Ex.A4, it seems that it was written to the plaintiff after filing of the suit by the plaintiff stating therewith that the resurvey No.81/6 at Sundakadu village has been registered in the name of the plaintiff as per his documents and he is in enjoyment of the same. On perusal of Ex.A4, it seems that it was written to the plaintiff after filing of the suit by the plaintiff stating therewith that the resurvey No.81/6 at Sundakadu village has been registered in the name of the plaintiff as per his documents and he is in enjoyment of the same. There is no dispute that this resurvey No.81/6 is not corresponding the suit property with the extent of 6 cents. This fact is also confirmed by the document filed on the side of the defendants viz., Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is a true copy of the land revenue register which shows that resurvey No.81/6 stands classified as "Oor Natham" with the extent of 0.02.5 hectares and its old survey number is 394. Ex.B2 shows that it is a true copy of Cultivation Adangal Register relating to fasli 1400 showing therewith that resurvey No.81/6 with the extent of 0025 hectares stands classified as "Oor Natham". No doubt, Exs.A1 to A3 shows the old survey No.393 whereas Ex.B1 shows 394 and Ex.B2 shows only resurvey No.81/6. However, there is no dispute on identity of the property between the parties as I have already referred supra and so, there is no question of mis-description or wrong description. 8. It is significantly to be pointed out that the defendants, who claim the suit property as belonging to Muthumariamman temple, have not chosen to file any other reliable and acceptable documents to show that the suit property, though classified as "Oor Natham", belongs to the temple and it is in enjoyment of the temple through the trustees. Likewise, the defendant also has not chosen to produce any acceptable and reliable document to show that the defendants are really trustees of the Muthumariamman temple or to show that they are representing the entire villagers and temple for the purpose of defending the suit. It is more so when it is admitted by the first defendant as DW1 in the chief examination itself that the temple is not under the control of H.R.& C.E. Board. It is more so when it is admitted by the first defendant as DW1 in the chief examination itself that the temple is not under the control of H.R.& C.E. Board. Further, DW1 has gone to the extent of admitting that there is no record to show that the suit property belongs to Muthumariamman temple and there is no record to show that the trustees, on behalf of the temple, alone are enjoying the suit property and at the same time, there are records to show that the trees, etc., were put in auction and yet, such records are not produced into court and he also admits that records are available showing the accounts relating to the income and expenditure of the temple and yet not produced same into court. It is also admitted by DW1 that the temple is facing east and the suit property is on the back of the temple. He has further categorically admitted that the temple is situated in 31 cents. So, in this context, it is to be pointed out that being an alleged trustee and first defendant, he is not in a position to say that the said 31 cents includes the suit property with the extent of 6 cents or not and this has not been clarified by the first defendant or any other witnesses examined on the side of the defendants viz., D.Ws.2 to 4. DW2 also has admitted that the suit property is lying on the west or back of the temple. DW3 also has admitted that the suit property is lying on the west of the temple and its extent is 6 cents and palmirah trees were there in the suit property and the usufructs of the palmirah trees were put in auction by the temple and the temple authorities alone cut the trees and with that money tiles were put upon the temple and festivals were conducted. In the cross examination, he has gone to the extent of saying that the suit property is one acre and palmirah trees were put in auction for two or three years and there are records to show about those details in the temple But, those records have not been produced into court. In the cross examination, he has gone to the extent of saying that the suit property is one acre and palmirah trees were put in auction for two or three years and there are records to show about those details in the temple But, those records have not been produced into court. DW4, who is none other than the Village Administrative Officer of the suit village, has also stated that the suit property is lying on the west of the temple and the old survey number of the suit property is 394 and new resurvey number is 81/6 and the extent is 6 cents. Further, he has admitted that the suit property stands classified as "Oor Natham" or "Grama Natham" and both nomenclatures are one and the same. He has further admitted that classification as "Oor Natham" or "Grama Natham" itself is meant for putting houses by the villagers. In the cross examination, he has stated that at the request of the plaintiff, he visited the suit property, but, not perused the revenue records and he has given four boundaries for the suit property as In this context, it has to be noted that in between the temple and the suit property, there should be some space for the people, at the time of festivals, to go around the temple and like purposes and that is why the Village Administrative Officer has chosen to say as At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that there is no record produced by him to show that there is and certainly are different from one another. In other words, in villages, it is common and usual that if there is a temple, the villagers would use to go around the temple at the time of festivals even though it may a property belonging to the revenue department or private individuals and nobody would object for that. At the same time, that does not mean that the property of a private individual would become the property of the temple automatically. But, in this case, it appears that some vacant space is available between the suit property and the temple for the people to go around and like activities. 9. At the same time, that does not mean that the property of a private individual would become the property of the temple automatically. But, in this case, it appears that some vacant space is available between the suit property and the temple for the people to go around and like activities. 9. The plaintiff, as PW1, has totally denied the status of the defendants as trustees of the temple and they are the persons only to give inconvenience to others with ulterior motive of extracting money, etc., and that he has also admitted in the cross examination that there is life fence upon the eastern limit of the suit property and the temple is lying still on the east of the said life fence and the space available still on the east of the fence does not belong to him and around the temple, on four sides, vacant space is available and the people will go around the temple at the time of festivals, but, at the same time, it is not correct to state that the people would cook pongal, etc., at the time of festival within the suit property belonging to him. From the admissions of the plaintiff, it has to be noted that the dispute seems to have commenced when the defendants calling themselves as trustees attempted to cut the trees that were standing within the suit property belonging to him and nothing else. It is not the stand of the defendants that the plaintiff is obstructing or grabbing the property or open space available around the temple in a way for the public to go around. Instead, the plaintiff appears to have objected to the cutting of the trees standing within the extent of 6 cents belonging to him. The conduct of the defendants alone prompted the plaintiff to file the suit. PW2 viz., Rajagopal, vendor of the plaintiff himself, has admitted in the cross examination that there is a space between the temple and the life fence of the plaintiff and at the same time he cannot say the exact space available. The conduct of the defendants alone prompted the plaintiff to file the suit. PW2 viz., Rajagopal, vendor of the plaintiff himself, has admitted in the cross examination that there is a space between the temple and the life fence of the plaintiff and at the same time he cannot say the exact space available. Therefore, in all probabilities and reasonableness, the space available in between the life fence of the suit property and the temple is still available and there is no hindrance to the people at large for using the same at the time of festivals and the grievance and apprehension of the plaintiff is only the attempt and conduct of the defendants to cut the trees within the suit property belonging to the plaintiff. PW3 Krishnamurthy, the vendor of the said Rajagopal PW2 also admitted in the cross examination that there is open space on the back or west of the temple for the people to go around. This also confirms the above stated aspect. That is why, the defendants calling themselves as responsible trustees of the temple have not chosen to have inspection by the commissioner appointed through court with the help of surveyor to find out whether the suit property actually belongs and comes within the boundary limit of the temple or not and whether there is any hindrance for the public to go around the temple and particularly on the western side that too when the plaintiff is having sufficient and reliable registered documents to show his title upon the suit property. 10. Therefore, on the strength of the above observed discussions, I am of the considered view that the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cuddalore cannot be found fault and consequently, the second appeal has no merits either on facts or under law in a way inviting this court to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cuddalore. 11. In the result, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.