Madras High Court
Periasamy Pillai vs The Idol Of Sri Ranganathaswamy Koil on 18 July, 2022
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
A.S.Nos.700 and 720 of 1999
A.S.No.700 of 1999:-
1. Periasamy Pillai
2. Ranganathan
3. Padmavathy
4. Vasantha ... Appellants/D6 to D9
vs.
1. The Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy Koil
Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha
Mandagapadi Thanneerpandhal Dharmam
Attached to the Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy,
Srirangam, Trichy, represented
By its Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer. ... R1/Plaintiff
2. Meera Venkatasamy
3. K.Ramprasad ... R2 & R3/D2 & D5
A.S.No.720 of 1999:-
1. Meera Rangasamy
2. Rangasamy
3. K.Ramprasad ... Appellants/D2, D3 & D5
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
vs.
1. The Idol of Sri Ranganathasamy Koil
Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha
Mandagapadi Thanneerpandhal Dharmam
Attached to the Idol of Sri Ranganatha
Samy, Srirangam, Trichy, represented
By its Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer. ... R1/Plaintiff
2. Periasamy Pillai
3. Ranganathan
4. Padmavathy
5. Vasantha ... R2 to R5/D6 to D9
Appeal Suits filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.
202 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli.
A.S.No.700 of 1999:-
For A2 to A4 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For R1 : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R2 : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for
Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi
A.S.No.720 of 1999:-
For A1 : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for
Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi
For A2 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For R1 : Mr.M.Saravanan
Page 2 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
COMMON JUDGMENT
The 1st respondent in both the appeals as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.202 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, against the appellants in both the appeals/defendants, for a declaration to declare the order passed in O.P.No.132/1986, dated 29.09.1986 on the file of the District Court, Trichy, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and also for a permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 5 not to alter the structure of the suit property by putting up construction. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 13.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 2, 3 and 5 have filed A.S.No.720/1999 and the defendants 6 to 9 who are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant filed A.S.No.700/1999.
2. Brief facts in the plaint are as follows:-
The ancestor of one Velupillai namely, Muthupillai, few generations ago, constructed a Mandapam in the suit property and through the Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 income from the rest of the portions of the suit property, he made arrangements for the visit of plaintiff's deity Lord Sriranganathar in that Mandapam. After construction, the said Mandapam was called as Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha Mandagapadi which is situated on Trichy-Chennai Highway. Through the income from the suit Property, Muthupillai also made arrangements for putting up Thannerpanthal for the devotees during Panguni festival, when Lord Sriranganathar visits that Mandagapadi. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was completely dedicated for doing charities and the patta for the suit property also stands in the name of Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha Mandagapadi Thanneerpandhal Dharmam. Thereafter, on 11.03.1921, Velupillai executed a will bequeathing his entire properties in favour of his daughter Mariyaye Ammal, except the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is belonged to Hindu Religious Charitable Trust attached to the Idol of Sri Ranganatha Samy, Srirangam, Trichy. Velupillai spent the expenses for the visit of Lord Srirranganathar in that Mandapam and received respect for that. Suppressing the same, the deceased 1st defendant/Maraiyaye Ammal filed O.P.No.132/1986 before the District Court, Trichy, without impleading the 1st respondent/plaintiff Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 and obtained the permission of the Court to sell the suit property. Thereafter, based on the order passed in the said original petition, the said Maraiyaye Ammal sold the suit property in favour of the appellants in both the appeals and they are attempting to alter the character of the suit property. Hence, the suit.
3. Brief averments in the written statement are as follows:-
3.1. Pending suit, the 1st defendant/Mariyayee Ammal and the 4th defendant died. Defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant and the defendants 2 and 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased 4th respondent who are already on record and a memo was filed to that effect. The 8th defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit property was not dedicated to the plaintiff's temple and the Mandapam situated in the suit property was never in possession of the plaintiff. There is no recital in the will dated 11.03.1921 as to how the income from the suit property has to be spent and there is no Kattalai created in the will. The Mandapam in the suit property was used for staying Lord Sriranganathar for sometime during 8th day of Panguni festival, and therefore, the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff's Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 temple. During festival, kattalai was performed not only by the 1st defendant's ancestors, but also by the public. The surrounding places of Mandapam in the suit property are not for charities. Thanneerpanthal was used to put up on behalf of the general public. The suit property is in possession of the 1st defendant and there was no Religious Charitable Trust created by the ancestors of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is not a necessary party to O.P.No.132/1986, and regarding the said O.P., a notification was issued through public advertisement and the plaintiff did not file any objection and the District Court passed an order in the said O.P., regarding the Private Charitable Trust. Based on the order passed in the said O.P., the 1st defendant executed a gift settlement in respect of 16 cents in favour of the 8th defendant on 27.02.1991, and from that date, the 8th defendant is in possession of the suit property. Mariyaye Ammal wrote a letter dated 29.12.1986 to the plaintiff's temple regarding the expenses for the kattalai, for which, the then Joint Commissioner replied that a sum of Rs.463.50/- would be incurred towards the expenses for kattalai and if a sum of Rs.5,000/- is deposited in an interest bearing deposit, he would withdraw the interest for performing kattalai. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 Mariyayee Ammal and by utilising the interest amount, kattalai is being performed till date. Suppressing these facts, the plaintiff filed the suit and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. The 3rd defendant also filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 5, wherein, it is stated that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try suit. As per the will of Velupillai, his entire properties bequeathed to his daughter Mariyayee Ammal. As per the will, from the income of the suit property, Maraiyayee Ammal should establish Thanneerpannthal dharmam and also Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha dharmam when Lord Sriranganathar goes to Ellaikarai via the suit property and the said dharmam shall be performed once in a year which shall be done as per the wish and will of Velupillai. The suit property is the individual property of Velupillai and it was not dedicated to the plaintiff's temple. When some years back, kattalais were not performed, there was no demand by the plaintiff to do kattalai. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by Mariyaye Ammal for performing kattalai.
After a lapse of 12 years from the order passed in O.P.No.132/1986 dated 29.09.1986, the present suit has been filed, as such, it is barred Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 by limitation. The 3rd defendant purchased 86 cents of land vide sale deeds dated 26.08.1992 and 16.09.1992 respectively. As per the orders of the Town and Country Planning Authorities, the suit property was converted as a house-site and the 3rd defendant made arrangements for constructing a multi-storied building at a cost of Rs.10 lakhs. The defendants 2, 3 and 5 are the purchasers of the suit property for a valuable consideration and there is a bar under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.3. The 6th defendant also filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 7 and 9. The 6th defendant reiterated the averments made in the written statements filed by the defendants 2, 3, 5 and 8. Apart from that, he would submit that surrounding the suit property, housing plots developed and there is no canal and therefore, no agricultural activity could be performed and no income is deriving from the suit property. Since for performing kattalais, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is enough, the 1st defendant decided to sell the suit property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
4. The plaintiff also filed a reply statement reiterating that when Lord Sriranganathar goes to Ellaikarai Mandapam, used to stay in the Mandapam of the suit property. The suit property is the dharma property dedicated to the plaintiff's temple and it is not the individual property of Mariyayee Ammal, as such, she has no right to sell the suit property.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
i. Whether as per the will dated 11.03.1921, the suit property was dedicated for staying the idol of the plaintiff's temple?
ii. Whether the order passed in Trust O.P.No.132/1986 is executable or not?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is a necessary party to the proceedings in O.P.No.132/1986?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession? vi. Whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not? Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 Vii. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the sale of the suit property to the defendants 2 to 5?
viii. Whether the defendants purchased the suit properties with good intention?
ix. Whether the suit property is a Private Charitable Trust property or Public Charitable Trust property?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the 3rd defendant was examined as DW1 and 21 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B21.
7. The trial Court considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 13.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 2, 3 and 5 have filed A.S.No.720/1999 and the defendants 6 to 9 who are the legal heirs of the deceased 4th defendant filed A.S.No.700/1999.
Page 10 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in A.S.No. 720/1999 would submit that there is no complete dedication in favour of the plaintiff's deity by Ex.A1-will as it does not contain any word of dedication. Further, unless the entire income of the property sought to be dedicated is to be utilised, Ex.A1 cannot be construed as a complete dedication. Even the recital of Ex.A1, wherein, the Testator has stated that after his life time, his daughter Mariyaye Ammal and her legal heirs are entitled to enjoy the suit property, clearly goes to show that the Testator never intended to benefit the deity with the entire income of the suit property. The learned trial Judge failed to note that unless there is a complete divestment and transfer of ownership from the donor to the donee, complete dedication cannot be implied. The trial Court also failed to note that whether the deed of dedication is complete or partial must be settled by conspectus of all the provisions of the deed. If the intention of the deed is to create a charge in favour of the deity as in this case, the dedication is only partial. While considering the present document Ex.A1, it is not expedient to construe the terms of one deed to the terms of another or to lay down a general rules applicable to the construction by settlements varying in terms.
Page 11 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
9. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the intention of the Testator and for that purpose, it has to take into consideration all the terms of the deed. The learned trial Judge failed to see that if it appears on a review of all the terms that after endowing the property in favour of a religious institution or a deity, the surplus is either expressly or by implication retained with the Testator or his heirs, partial dedication may be readily inferred, notwithstanding apparently comprehensive words of the deposition in favour of the deity. In the above context, the trial Court failed to note that the items referred to in Ex.A1 being done without any obstacle and the expenses never exceeded the amount referred in Ex.B1. The trial Court also failed to see that in Ex.A1, there is no statement that the property in question has been completely dedicated and even there is no mention as to how much amount has to be spent and there is no statement as to what is to be done to the surplus. From the recital of Ex.A1, one cannot come to the conclusion about the complete dedication. From the document, it cannot even be called as a kattalai or specific endowment, since there is no kattalai register or property register to Page 12 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 show that the property was dedicated to the deity either in the name of kattalai or in the name of specific endowment. The charity mentioned in Ex.A1 is not a charity connected with the plaintiff's temple or religious charity and Ex.A1 does not create Public or Private Religious Charitable Trust and in such a case, the Trust Act is applicable and permission granted is valid.
10. He would further submit that the suit is barred by limitation and the learned trial Judge failed to note that Ex.B1 letter dated 19.01.1987 implies knowledge about the proceedings and the suit filed in the year of 1998 is clearly barred under Section 58 of the Limitation Act. The suit property was never in possession of the temple at any point of time much less before 1993. Hence, under Section 109 of the HR & CE Act, the right to sue for possession is extinguished. The Government Order relied on for the exemption cannot be applied to suits for declaration of title. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no specific endowment attached with Ex.A1. At the time of Ex.A1, Mariyayee Ammal was a minor and therefore, after attaining majority Mariyayee Ammal asked the plaintiff's Devasthanam to Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 give an estimate for continuing endowment and they also gave an estimate and accordingly, she deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Out of the interest accruing on such deposit, the plaintiff's temple is performing the charities mentioned in the will. Therefore, even now all the charities are being performed as mentioned in Ex.A1. There is no declaration of permanent endowment. The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the nature and character of dedication and the fact that possession never transferred to the deity. Therefore, the suit property is under the control of the donee and she is enjoying the property and continuing the charities and therefore, the property is not attached with the temple and it is only with the donee. He would further submit that only after obtaining permission of the Court in O.P.No.132/1986, Mariyayee Ammal sold the suit property to defendants 2 to 5 who are the bonafide purchasers without notice for valuable consideration. After purchase, they are constructing the building and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.720/1999 adopted the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel.
Page 14 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would submit that the deceased Mariyayee Ammal has no right to sell the suit property and the permission obtained by Mariyayee Ammal from the District Court is of no avail. Apart from that, such permission is a nullity. Ex.A1 is clear and categoric that the suit property has been dedicated absolutely to the 1st respondent deity. The sale deeds executed by Maraiyayee Ammal in favour of the appellants in both the appeals are invalid. The appellants are not the bonafide purchasers and they purchased the suit property knowing fully well that it is inalienable and if they have got any remedy, they can proceed against their vendor Mariyayee Ammal and they cannot claim title over the suit property. Though they have obtained patta and planning permission, the same will not give them any right to the suit property and the subsequent construction also will not bind the plaintiff. Even the appellants have given an undertaking that the superstructure to be put up by them will be removed in the event of the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, but even after succeeding in the suit, they did not remove it.
12. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would Page 15 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 further submit that the recital in Ex.A1 clearly shows that Mariyayee Ammal has no alienable right over the suit property. There are three items shown in Ex.A1. Except the suit property, in respect of items 1 and 3, Mariyayee Ammal has got absolute right and title, whereas in respect of the second item in Ex.A1 which is the suit property, she has no alienable right and she cannot sell or encumber the property. The right given in respect of the suit property to Mariyayee Ammal is that she can enjoy it and she has to perform the charities mentioned in the deed out of the income derived from the suit property. Therefore, it is a total dedication. Even though the possession is with the appellants, they do not have any right to encumber the suit property. Whatever the income comes from the suit property, that has to be utilised for the kattalai/charities mentioned in the deed. Even in Ex.A1, the suit property has been described as dharma property.
13. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would further submit that though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the suit property has not been dedicated to the deity and it is not the absolute dedication or endowment, and since Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 there is no amount fixed for performing the charity, it is only a charity and not the endowment, the recital of Ex.A1 very clearly says that it is not the self-acquired property of the donor and it is the ancestral property. The suit property has been described as dharma property. Even during the life time of the Testator, the suit property was treated as dharma property and they used to perform kattalai every year during Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha and the Mandagapadi in the suit property was also called as Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha Mandagapadi Thanneerpandhal Dharmam. It is evident from Ex.A1, from time immemorial even prior to the birth of Mariyayee Ammal, her ancestors performed kattalai and therefore, along with other properties, the suit property was given to Mariyayee Ammal not as her absolute property, but only to continue the charities performed by her ancestors, but the property has been dedicated to the temple. Though either in the property register or kattalai register of the plaintiff's temple, this property has not been shown, still the document itself clearly shows the complete dedication. PW1 clearly says that even without any document, a dedication can be done and a charity or endowment can be created, for which, no document is necessary.
Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
14. Gathering from the recitals of Ex.A1 and other materials, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent states that the intention of the Testator is that the suit property should not be alienated. Even in that property, there is a Mandapam and at the time of Panguni festival, when Lord Sriranganathar goes to Ellaikarai Mandapam via the said Mandapam situated in the suit property every year Panguni Madham Ettam Thiruvizha, the ancestors of Mariyayee Ammal used to perform kattalai and they established a Thanneerpanthal, since the month of Panguni is the hottest season in Tamilnadu, for the devotees who are followers of the deity wherever the deity goes. The intention of the Testator is whoever the devotees comes to that Mandapam during that festival, water and cool drinks have to be provided in order to ventilate the thrust of the devotees. Therefore, under these circumstances, Mariyayee Ammal has no right to alienate the suit property. Since the suit property is an endowment/kattalai, it is inalienable and the trustee has no right to sell the property, as such, the sale made by Mariyayee Ammal is null and void and the permission granted by the District Court, Trichy, is in- executable and the Court has no jurisdiction or power to grant such Page 18 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 permission to sell the property. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit. Therefore, both the appeals have to be dismissed.
15. Heard both sides and perused the records.
16. The case of the appellants is that the father of the deceased 1st defendant/Mariyayee Ammal executed a will in favour of his daughter Mariyayee Ammal. In the will, he has stated that out of the income from the suit property, the charities mentioned in the will have to be performed which clearly shows that there is no complete dedication and there is no declaration of charity or endowment and the property has not been dedicated as the property of the deity of the plaintiff's temple. The possession of the suit property has not been given for the deity and the rights and title also have not been transferred to the deity. She can enjoy the property and only out of the income from the suit property, she has to perform the charities mentioned in the will. At the time of execution of Ex.A1, the said Mariyayee Ammal was a minor. Therefore, an Executor was appointed till she attains majority and the said Executor Page 19 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 maintained the suit property and performed the charities as mentioned in the will. After she became major, she was also continuously enjoying the suit property and performing that charities. Even the quantum of amount to be spent towards charity is also not specific in Ex.A1. Though subsequently the suit property did not derive any income, the said Mariyayee Ammal asked the plaintiff's temple about the expenses for performing the charities as mentioned in the will through Ex.B1 letter. The plaintiff's temple also intimated as to the quantum of amount and accordingly Mariyayee Ammal also deposited Rs.10,000/- and the plaintiff also informed that interest amount from that deposit would be sufficient to perform the charities. Based on that and since the suit property did not fetch any income, she applied to the District Court, Trichy, for permission to sell the property. Thereafter, she also obtained permission from the Town Planning Authority and subsequently sold the property and also deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Even now, the charities mentioned in Ex.A1 are being carried out without any hindrance.
17. The main contention of the appellants is that there is no Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 absolute dedication and it is only a charge created in the property, but still now the charities are being performed. Therefore, there is no necessity to invoke the charge, but however, the 1st respondent would submit that it is the absolute dedication and a specific endowment and the recital in Ex.A1 will show the intention of the Testator to dedicate the property to the deity of the plaintiff's temple. Therefore, it is the property of the deity.
18. Though the learned Senior Counsel would submit that control over power has not been given to the plaintiff's temple; possession has not been given to the temple; right and title have not been transferred in favour of the temple; even the patta is not transferred to the temple and the property register/kattalai register does not reflect such transfer, and in support of his contentions, relied on the judgments reported in AIR 1957 SC 797, Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another vs. Duddukuru Subba Rao and others, Nirmala Bala Ghose and another vs. Balai Chand Ghose reported in AIR 1965 SC 1874 and Kuldip Chand and another vs. Advocate General to Government of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2003-L.W. 16, the said contention of the learned Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 Senior Counsel is not acceptable and the decisions referred to by him are not applicable to the present case on hand since the recital in Ex.A1 clearly shows the intention of the Testator.
19. Though there are three items of properties mentioned in Ex.A1, absolute right has been given to Mariyayee Ammal in respect of two properties namely, items 1 and 3. As far as the second item, that is, the suit property, the Testator has not given any right to Mariyayee Ammal and only she can enjoy it and out of the income from the property, she has to perform the charities mentioned in the will. Further, it is stated that she has no right to sell the suit property. Even in the schedule of property to Ex.A1, the suit property has been described as dharma property. The recitals of Ex.A1 further show that it is not the first time, the Testator has created the said Trust. Even the recitals go to show that his ancestors already created the Trust and during his life time, Velupillai performed the same and therefore, he has mentioned in Ex.A1-will that in the very same way, his daughter Mariyayee Ammal has to perform the charities utilising the income from the suit property. Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
20. The physical feature of the property also shows that there is a Mandapam and during Pangugi 8th day festival, Lord Sriranganathar comes to that Mandapam and rests there for sometime. The family of Velupillai spent expenses for the visit of Lord Sriranganathar in that Mandapam and received respect for that. During that time, large number of devotees would be gathering in the suit property. The Testator has not stopped with that. He also stated that there should an establishment of Thannerpanthal temporarily during that time and the family also has to provide water, buttermilk, and cool drinks to the devotees. All that shall be done out of the income of the said property. Therefore, the vacant portion of the land would be utilised for gathering of the devotees on a particular day. For the rest of the period, it can be cultivated or used for generating any type of income and that income has to be used for performing charities. The Testator has not specified what amount should be spent which depends upon the income and the capacity of the family which they can spent for charities.
21. Therefore, Ex.A1 clearly shows that the suit property is a specific endowment attached to the deity of the plaintiff's temple and Page 23 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 neither Mariyayee Ammal nor her legal heirs have any alienable right to encumber or sell the suit property. Even though possession is stated to be with the appellants, they have no alienable interest as they are not the bonafide purchasers. Even the permission granted by the District Court will not bind the plaintiff's temple, since it was not made as a party in that proceedings. When the will has specifically stated that Mariyayee Ammal has no alienable right in respect of the suit property and in favour of the deity of the plaintiff's temple, some right has been created, the said Mariyayee Ammal ought to have impleaded the temple in the O.P., and the permission obtained by Mariyayee Ammal without impleading the plaintiff's temple is not binding on the plaintiff temple. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court finds that the sale made by Mariyayee Ammal in favour of the appellants in both the appeals is null and void.
22. As far as limitation is concerned, against the Trust and Trust property, no limitation is applicable and against the Trust property, no adverse possession can be claimed and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. The trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed by the temple rejecting the claim of the appellants in both the appeals. Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
23. The appellate Court being a fact finding Court, it has to re- appreciate the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence. On a careful perusal of the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and also the judgment of the trial Court, this Court does not find any perversity or good reason to interfere with the said judgment.
24. Accordingly, both the Appeal Suits are liable to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.202 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, are confirmed. No costs.
bala 18.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Trichirappalli.
Page 25 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
bala
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
A.S.Nos.700 and 720 of 1999
DATED : 18.07.2022
Page 26 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis