Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1588 (MAD)

Gunavathi v. Tiruppur District Collector

2019-06-10

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2010, passed in A.S. No. 13 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2008, passed in O.S. No.673 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs/appellants for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiffs claim the above said relief’s on the footing that the suit properties belonged to Ramanuja Iyer as per the Inam Abolition and Ryothwari Act and contended that patta had been granted in favour of Ramanuja Iyer and the plaintiffs, being his daughters, are entitled to the suit properties and taking advantage of the position that the plaintiffs are ladies, it is contended that the 4th defendant had encroached into the portion of the suit properties and put up the fencing and the 5th defendant has also attempted and as well as carrying on the quarrying activities in the suit properties without any authority and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate relief’s. 4. The defendants 1 to 3 have resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that the suit properties had not been assigned to Ramanuja Iyer as put forth by the plaintiffs and in fact disputed the assignment said to have been issued in favour of Ramanuja Iyer qua the suit properties and according to them, the suit properties were assigned only in the name of the 3rd defendant's temple and the appeal preferred by Ramanuja Iyer against the order of the Settlement Officer had also been dismissed and the further appeal preferred by him in the Subordinate Court was also dismissed and therefore contended that the suit properties only belong to the 3rd defendant's temple and accordingly urged that the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain the relief’s as prayed for in the suits. 5. The 4th defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that Ramanuja Iyer and others had executed a sale deed in its favour on 23.05.04 with reference to the first item and also further contended that a further extent of 9.44 acres had been sold on 22.03.1995 in favour Narayana Krishnan and Company and accordingly, they alone are in the portions acquired by them and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. 6. Based on the materials placed on record and the submissions made by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the suit laid by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 7. The plaintiffs claim the relief’s prayed for in the suit on the footing that the suit properties had been assigned in favour of Ramanuja Iyer, their predecessor in title. However, with reference to the said claim of the plaintiffs, there is no acceptable and reliable materials on the part of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, considering the proceedings of the Settlement Officer, marked as Ex.B3, as well as the evidence adduced by the respective witnesses, it is seen that patta had been granted in respect of the suit properties only in favour of the 3rd defendant's temple and Ramanuja Iyer had been only shown as the Hereditary Trustee of the temple and accordingly, it is found that as determined by the Courts below, the suit property had been assigned only in favour of the temple and in such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiffs that Ramanuja Iyer had been granted independent title to the suit properties by way of assignment, as such, cannot be accepted sans any convincing and reliable materials pointing to the same. 8. From the materials placed on record, at the most it could only be seen that Ramanuja Iyer could be described as the Hereditary Trustee of the 3rd defendant's temple. That apart, he had not been shown to be conveyed any title in respect of the suit properties as sought to be made out by the plaintiffs. It is found that Ramanuja Iyer had died in 1999 and thereafter, there is no material on the part of the plaintiffs to hold that any other person had been managing the temple as the Hereditary Trustee and in particular, there is no material to hold that the plaintiffs are managing the temple as the Hereditary Trustees and in such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiffs that they are having the right over the suit properties, as such, cannot be accepted and rightly declined by the Courts below. 9. 9. From Ex.B6, it is found that the suit properties are only under the management of the 3rd defendant's temple and that it is only the temple who had been conducting the auction in respect of the suit properties and enjoying the same. As above noted, as against the order of the Settlement Officer, the appeal preferred by Ramanuja Iyer has been rejected. In such view of the matter, when the available materials placed on record would go to show that it is only the 3rd defendant's temple which had been assigned the suit properties and not Ramanuja Iyer and when there is no material on the part of the plaintiffs to hold that they had control, possession and enjoyment of the suit properties at any point of time independently, in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs having failed to establish that they have any semblance of right to the suit properties, as rightly determined by the Courts below, no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs as prayed for. 10. As could be seen from the pleas projected by the respective parties and the materials placed on record, it is found that the 4th defendant had encroached into the portion of the suit properties and as rightly found by the Courts below, with respect to the claim of title, the right of the 4th defendant in respect of the portion of the suit properties, there is no convincing material placed on record and the 4th defendant has also not projected any claim of title to the suit property by seeking a counter claim in the present suit. 11. In the light of the above position, when the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title, possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in any manner and as above discussed, when the suit properties are found to have been assigned only in favour of the 3rd defendant's temple, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be justified in not accepting the case of the plaintiffs and accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below in rejecting the plaintiffs' case. 12. 12. During the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the 3rd defendant's temple represented that the 3rd defendant had levied a suit in O.S. No.169 of 2012 against others who had encroached into the suit properties for declaration and possession and represented that the said suit had ended in favour of the 3rd defendant's temple and following the decree passed in the said suit, the 3rd defendant temple had also taken the possession of the suit properties. In this connection, a copy of the judgment dated 10.01.2017, passed in O.S. No. 169 of 2012, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet was submitted for consideration. 13. In the light of the above said factors, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.