Madras High Court
C.Chonachalam vs Veeranarayanamangalam Vellala on 4 April, 2014
Author: G.Chockalingam
Bench: G.Chockalingam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM S.A.(MD)No.65 of 2007 1.C.Chonachalam 2.K.Ramaswami 3.S.Jawahar : Appellants/Defendants Vs. 1.Veeranarayanamangalam Vellala Samudayam Muthalamman Koil Trust Veeranarayanmangalam, Thazhakudi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2.C.Sivasubramani Pillai 3.A.Padmanabha Pillai 4.G.Sivagnanam Pillai :Respondents/Plaintiffs Prayer This second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil in A.S.No.22 of 2006, dated 31.08.2006, confirming the decree and judgment of the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil in O.S.No.262 of 2002, dated 25.01.2006. !For Appellants : Mr.T.Srinivasaraghavan ^For Respondents : Mr.N.Sivakumar :JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree, dated 31.08.2006 passed in A.S.No.22 of 2006, dated 31.08.2006 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.262 of 2002, dated 25.01.2006, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.
2.The appellants herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.262 of 2002 on the file of the trial Court seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.
3.It is averred in the amended plaint that the first plaintiff is the Veeranarayanamangalam Vellala Samudaya Mutharamman Koil Trust represented by the plaintiffs 2 to 4, who are the present Trustees of the said Trust. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are looking after the affairs of the Trust, Temple and its properties. The plaintiffs took charge of the administration of the Trust from 17.11.2000 onwards. The previous Trustees were S.Pulamuthu Pillai, K.Narayana Pillai and S.Sivaramakrishna Pillai and they functioned as Trustees from 21.03.1997 to 16.11.2000. From time immemorial, the 1st plaintiff Trust is possessing movable and immovable properties in its name and the income derived from these properties, the affairs of the Trust and Temple poojas are being performed. As the Trust properties are managed by the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff Trust has got absolute right over the Trust properties. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 3 ares in resurvey number 139/7 of Thazhakudy village belongs to the plaintiff's Trust. In the temple, there are idols of Lord Siva and Pillayar and it is an ancient one and there is no compound wall available surrounding the temple. The temple is situated nearly 2 cents and the remaining 5 cents are lying vacant. Since on 11.05.2000 and 27.03.2002 the defendants along with some others attempted to trespass into the schedule property and trying to make construction of compound wall, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief as stated supra.
4.In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred as follows:-
The plaintiffs have no right in respect of the schedule property. The schedule property and the temple are in possession and management of the life Trustee Sree Maharaja Pattar and he is the Thiruppu Holder of Yoheswaramudayar Nainar Kovil at Veeranarayanamangalam as evident from the Government records namely, the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nagercoil in S.R.No.13/67, dated 28.10.1967. The defendants belong to Yoheswarar community, which is declared as 'Most Backward' by the Tamil Nadu Government. The Yoheeswarar community people are the only worshipper and beneficiaries of the temple situated in the schedule property. The person, who is in absolute authority and management of the temple in the schedule property is the Trustee Maharaja Patter. The defendants and their community people are the only worshipper and beneficiaries of the temple and the affairs of the temple are administered and managed by life trustee Maharaja pattar. The alleged attempt of trespass by the defendants along with some others, alleged in the plaint is false. The tenure of the plaint schedule property is Karamozhiva (tax free) and nobody need pay the tax to the land. The defendants, their community people with Maharaja Patta have got every right to exercise over the schedule property. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the suit.
5.The trial court after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side has decreed the suit as prayed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants as appellants have preferred the A.S.No.22 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate court. The first appellate court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. Against the concurrent judgment and decree of courts below, this second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendants as appellants.
6.At the time of admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration:-
1.Whether the courts below failed to follow the dictum that the plaintiffs must have to prove their case and not base its conclusion on minor defects in defendants plea?
2.Whether the courts below failed to note that patta is not a document of title nor the revenue records based on that patta?
3.Whether the courts below failed to note that the plaintiffs have come forward with suppression of material documents of the trust even though admitted by P.W.1 that the same is available?
4.Whether the courts below committed error in either not understanding or overlooked the fact that in the earlier Revenue record the suit temple being mentioned as 'Karamozhiva (Tax free) and naturally so being temple proamboke not to be assessed the pattas produced by plaintiff must be a created one.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants argued that the property in question is not belonged to the respondents/plaintiffs and the respondents/plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and the documents produced on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs are not title deeds and therefore, it will not confer any title to the respondents/plaintiffs and the documents are not clearly proved the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs to the suit property and both the courts below erroneously held that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and decreed the suit and therefore, the concurrent findings of the courts below are liable to be set aside and the second appeal has to be allowed.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants further argued that patta and revenue records are not title documents in respect of the suit property and both the courts below erroneously held that they are valid documents and on that basis, both the courts below wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. But the property in question was jointly belonged Maharaja Pattar, the erstwhile Trustee and he is receiving Tasdik allowance from the Government and virtually, the appellants/defendants are in possession of the property, but both the courts have erroneously held that the appellants/defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and decreed the suit and therefore, the concurrent findings of the courts below are liable to be set aside and there was no proper oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs and on the side of the appellants/defendants, sufficient documents were produced to prove the title and possession of the property and the oral evidence adduced by the appellants/defendants, but the courts below, without analysing the evidence of the appellants/defendants given a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the the concurrent findings of the courts below are liable to be set aside and the second appeal has to be allowed.
9.The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that both the courts have concurrently given a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the appellants/defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on the side of both parties, both the courts below have correctly come to the conclusion that since, the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, decreed the suit as prayed for and the first appellate court also confirmed the same and therefore, the concurrent findings of the courts below do not require interference in this appeal and prays for the dismissal of the second appeal.
10.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the following judgements:-
1.A.I.R. 1936 Madras 936 [Muthayyan Swaminatha Sastrial and others vs. S.Narayanaswami Sastrial and others]
2.AIR 1968 SCC 1165 [Nair Service Society Ltd., vs. K.C.Alexander and others]
3.AIR 1989 SC 1809 [Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs. M.Papaiah and another]
4.AIR 1999 ANDHRA PRADESH 188 [P.Buchi Reddy and others vs. Ananthula Sudhakar]
5.(2010)2 SCC 254 [G.Suryakumari and another vs. B.Chandramouli and others]
11.In this case, both the courts below, after analysing the evidences and documents produced on either side, have come to a definite conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the appellants/defendants are not in anyway in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and they have set up the title in favour of M.Maharaja Pattar, who was the erstwhile Trustee receiving Tasdik allowance from the Government and to that effect 'B' serious were marked and there is no evidence produced on the side of the appellants/defendants that Maharaja Pattar was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as Trustee, even though the suit is pending for a long time and the title is in favour of Maharaja Pattar, he has not at all claimed title to the suit property. The appellants/defendants are not claiming any independent title or possession over the suit property and the claim is relied upon Maharaja Pattar, who is the Trustee, but there is no evidence produced. It is proved from the records that Maharaja Pattar receiving dasdik allowance from the Government and it does not mean that he is in possession of the property.
12.On the other hand, on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs, they were produced produce voluminous documents viz., patta, Chitta and Adangal Extract and tax receipts etc., for their continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
13.It is well settled principles of law that revenue records will not confer any title to the property, but the revenue records will definitely prove the possession of the property. Hence, the records produced on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs, the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs has proved beyond reasonable doubt and since, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of their possession. The suit for permanent injunction the possession of the property alone has to be proved, but in this case it is clearly proved by the respondents/plaintiffs.
14.Further, as already discussed, even according to the case of the appellants/defendants, one Maharaja Pattar alone claimed to be the hereditary trustee and receiving dastik allowance, the said Maharaja Pattar has not claim any independent title over the suit property. But, in this case, from the evidence produced on either side, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the appellants/defendants have no right or title to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the concurrent findings of the courts below need not be interfered with in this second appeal.
15.In this case, the respondents/plaintiffs have proved their possession under the documents and it is not correct to say that both the courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellants/defendants possession has not proved. Even though the patta is not a document of title, it clearly proved the possession of the plaintiffs. Further, on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs voluminous documents were produced to show their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But on the side of the appellants/defendants, no valid document has been produced to prove their possession. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that since it is a temple land, no tax was collected and no document is available on the side of the appellants/defendants is not at all acceptable one.
16.Further, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon a judgment of this court reported in 2000(IV)CTC 513 in the case of Tmt.Nallammal vs. Dhanshkodi, in support of his contention, wherein it has been held that:-
"Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100-Lower appellate Court's finding of fact should not be interfered with in second appeal so long as there is some material for arriving at suit finding by lower appellate court.
"10.The lower appellate Court, as the final court of fact, has come to a proper conclusion with regard to the non-genuineness of the agreement, Ex.A2. As has been pointed out in the Supreme Court decision Taherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammed, AIR 1999 SC 1104 that as long as there was some material for the rejection of the document, the Second Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the above said finding of fact reached by the lower Appellate Court."
17. From the reading of the above said rulings, it is made clear that when both the courts below have decided the question of fact that who is in possession of the property, the High court should not interfere with the above question of fact, which has become final. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and they are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for and there is no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the courts below and the second appeal is liable to be set aside.
18.Accordingly, the substantial questions of law answered.
19.In the result, the second appeal is dismissed and the concurrent findings of the courts below are confirmed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
er To,
1.The II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.
2.The II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.