ADIVARAM CHOULTRY THIRKAZHKUNDRAM RERESENTED Vs. KUMARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE above Second Appeal arises against tHE judgment and decree in A.S.No.17 of 2000 on tHE file of Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, CHEngalpattu reversing tHE Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.6 of 1993 on tHE file of Sub Court, CHEngalpattu.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal and the respondent is the defendant in the suit.

(3.) THE brief case of the defendant is as follows: (i) According to the defendant, there is no material allegation in the plaint to the effect that the suit property was also the subject matter of G.O.Ms.No.989 Revenue dated 23.3.1965. THE plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. THE suit in O.S.No.136 of 1975 was filed only against the Government Order which ousted the authority of the Trustee over the Adivaram Choultry. THE erstwhile trustees filed the suit only to preserve their right of trusteeship in the administration of Adivaram Choultry. THE suit was not filed with reference to the present subject matter. Unless the plaintiff produces some material evidence to show that the suit property belonged to Adivaram Choultry, the plaintiff cannot have any cause of action against the defendant. (ii) According to the defendant, L.P.A.NO.81 of 1984, which is said to have become final and conclusive, is only in respect of the dispute with regard to the right in the administration of the Adivaram Choultry between the H.R.& C.E. Department and the Ex-trustees. THE plaintiff has neither taken charge of the Adivaram Choultry building nor the subject matter of the suit, which is in no way connected with the administration of the Adivaram Choultry. (iii) According to the defendant, the suit has no connection whatsoever with the Adivaram Choultry and there is no document to show that it belong to the said Choultry. THE suit filed by the plaintiff without a prayer for declaration of its title is not maintainable, when the defendant asserts title in himself exclusively and when the defendant's predecessors have admittedly exercised their right of ownership by selling the property to various persons. THEre is no document to show that the Founder had ever bequeathed the suit property and the adjacent property for any charitable purpose. THE documents filed by the plaintiff will show that only a 'Kattalai' was created by one Thirumanam Ramalinga Mudaliar for the performance of certain charities by mere donation of cash for the said purpose so that the interest accrued therefrom can be made use of for performance of the charities intended by him. THE documents filed by the plaintiff will clearly shows that no immovable property was dedicated or bequeathed by the Founder. (iv) According to the defendant, the suit property form part of Grama Natham S.No.29/27-A1 in Tirukazhukundram Village. THE property originally belonged to the ancestor of one T.S.Padmanabha Mudaliar. THE total extent was 56,718 sq.ft. T.S.Padmanabha Mudaliar was allotted half share on the western side measuring 28,359 sq.ft and the eastern half measuring 28,539 sq.ft., was allotted to the two sons of Vedadridasan i.e., T.V. Sulochana Mudaliar and Ramasamy Mudaliar. Padmanaba Mudaliar along with his sons were enjoying his share of property and similarly the other branch, i.e., the sons of Vedadridasan, were enjoying the other half, by virtue of an oral family partition, which was later reduced into writing by a deed of affirmation dated 4.3.1988. (v) According to the defendant, Padmanabha Mudaliar sold a portion of his property to one Parvathi Ammal under registered sale deed dated 1.10.1991 and on the same day, he sold the remaining portion of the property to A.Srinivasan. THE said Srinivasan sold the suit property in favour of the defendant. THE remaining part is still under the possession and enjoyment of the said Srinivasan. Similarly the sons of Vedadridasan, through their power agent, have sold their property to one Kannimuthu Naicker and Vedadri Naicker on 28.9.1992 under two sale deeds. THErefore, the entire property measuring 58,718 sq.ft. is owned and enjoyed by the above said persons besides the defendant. THE defendant and his predecessors prescribed title by adverse possession. THE defendant has put up a Kalyana Mandapam at huge cost after getting the plan approved by the Tirukalikundram Town Panchayat. He has also laid basement foundation for shopping complex and he has obtained necessary approval. THErefore, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.