SHANMUGHAM Vs. ARULMIGU VINAYAGAR AND ARULMIGHU DHANDAYUTHAPANISWAMI DEITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. THE respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 218 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profit, alleging that the suit property originally belong to two sisters by name Kamatchi Ammal and Palaniammal, who executed a dedication deed on 5.5.1933 creating a trust in favour of the deities at Manapalli Village in Namakkal, the object being to manage the temple, to conduct Neivethiam, and lighting and other connected service. When one Muthuveera Gounder was acting as the Manager of the Deity, the suit property was leased out to the defendant by lease deed dated 1.3.1973, putting him in possession. Alleging that the said Muthuveera Gounder was not empowered to do, the respondent/plaintiff contended that the possession of the defendant/appellant was unlawful and therefore, he was only a trespasser. Hence the above suit.

(2.) THE appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending that he was a cultivating tenant under the lease deed dated 1.3.1972, which was marked as exhibit B1 and therefore, he was entitled to continue to be in possession of the suit property and not liable to be evicted unless and until steps were taken under due process of law.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the proceedings of the Record Officer dated 6.2.1989 marked as exhibit B20, by order dated 18.6.2002 in CMP No. 11391 of 1989, contends that the appellant/defendant is a cultivating tenant and it has been recorded so under the provisions of THE Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, by competent authority, after holding due enquiry in which the respondent/plaintiff, Village Administrative Officer concerned and others have admittedly participated. THE learned counsel further contends that unless the said proceedings is set aside in the manner known to law, the appellant/defendant is not entitled to be dispossessed from the suit property.