KIRUPAKARAN ARULMIGHU KANNAPURATHAMMAN THIRUKOIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE Vs. A. UTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S. No.815 of 1992 is the appellant in S.A. No.657 of 1999. The suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants men or agents or any other person from collecting any rent or donation or any fee for the suit property.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.815 of 1992 is that, the first defendant Kirubakaran is claiming himself as trustee of Kannapaurathamman Temple threatening the plaintiff and forcing to donate money. Earlier, on a similar situation, the plaintiff Uthaman filed a suit in O.S.No.6420/1985 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and got a decree against the first defendant. The plaintiff was allotted the suit premises by the 2nd defendant/Slum Clearance Board in his proceedings dated 23.03.1984. He has put up pucca construction on the suit premises. Posing himself as trustee of Kannapurathamman Temple. The plaintiff has already taken possession of many patta holders through eviction petitions. Those persons namely Jagannathan, Lakshmipathi, Ponnammal have filed suits for injunction in O.S.Nos.755 of 1990, 756 of 1990 and 1312 of 1990 respectively on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai and the same are pending. The first defendant with rowdy persons attempted to extract rent for the suit property. The first defendant who is neither the owner of the property nor has any right over the suit property, is demanding rent from the plaintiff. The suit property does not belong to the temple. The suit property was allotted to the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant/Slum Clearance Board, Hence, the suit.

(3.) The first defendant in the written statement contented that the suit land and the superstructure thereon belong to Kannapurathamman Koil Devasthanam. His father V.M.K. Rajamanickam Chettiar was the hereditary trustee of the temple. The plaintiff is a tenant under the temple paying monthly rent of Rs.20.00p.m. Against the tenants, who were not paying the rent, Kannapurathamman Koil Devasthanam filed an Ejection suit in Ejt.S.No.70 of 1975. In that suit, the defaulted tenants denied the title of the plaintiff and contented that the property belongs to the Slum Clearance Board. The Court held that the property belong to the temple and the defaulters are liable to vacate the premises. Since the temple is the owner of the property, the suit is bad for non-jointer of necessary party.