ARUMIGU LOGAVINAYAGR TEMPLE Vs. SANKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the above three Second Appeals, challenge is made to the common judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chennai, in A.S. Nos.169 and 243 of 2004, confirming the judgment and decree of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, passed in O.S. No.6552 of 1992 on 05.03.2004.

(2.) Sankari-R1 in both the appeals, as plaintiff, had filed O.S. No.6552 of 1992 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, and the pleadings, in brief, run thus:-

(3.) The temple filed a detailed written statement specifically stating that there was no cause of action for the suit and there was no threat at all as complained by the plaintiff for filing the suit and further, only with an oblique motive, the suit has been instituted against the temple, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and such fact could be seen from the issuance of patta under Ex.B1 dated 19.02.1992. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.38 of 1948, dated 04.04.1950, ordering delivery of possession of the suit property in favour of the temple clearly shows that the suit property belongs to the defendant/temple. In fact, the judgment-debtor, who is the grand-father of the plaintiff, did not even take any step to challenge the correctness of the said decree passed in favour the temple/judgment holder and such aspect would go to show that there cannot be any veracity in the claim of the plaintiff that her grandfather and herself had perfected their title in view of their continuous occupation and, in fact, they can only be termed as encroachers, who unlawfully retained the possession although there was a decree against them for ejectment. That apart, after passing of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.38 of 1948 against the plaintiff's grandfather and others, though they surrendered possession to the temple and left the place once for all, subsequently, they got into possession only to an extent of 1.5 grounds unlawfully, which compelled the temple to file another suit in O.S. No.3002 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, and that also came to be disposed of on 30.12.1969 again giving a finding that although the Temple proved its title to the suit property, they allowed the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property beyond the statutory period. Therefore, when the lawful title over the suit property vests only with the temple, they are entitled to protect the property from the encroachers like the plaintiff and she has no locus standi to plead or allege that her possession, which is nothing but a clear trespass over the suit land, is sought to be disturbed by the temple. The suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but an attempt to get an order of injunction so as to sell out the temple property to innocent third parties in order to make more money. Also, there was no patta issued in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and the said aspect is verified by the temple from the TSLR (Town Survey Land Register). Further, on the date when the Tahsildar is said to have made signature in the revenue records said to be standing in favour of the plaintiff, he retired from service, therefore, it goes without saying that the plaintiff forged even the revenue records. There was never any threat as alleged by the plaintiff, because, it could be seen that there has been no police complaint ever made by the plaintiff against the temple authorities for posing any threat of dispossession before coming to court by filing the suit. According to the temple/defendant, the above background would clearly indicate that the suit was a frivolous one filed with ulterior motives to achieve oblique purpose and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.