Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: second injunction in G.Rajendri vs Fit Person/Executive OfficerMatching Fragments
5.The suit in O.S.No.12292 of 1996 was filed by one C.G.Gajapathy, the plaintiff, with the following prayers:
i)to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the premises in No.12, Amman Koil Street, Park Town, Madras-3 and to direct the defendants to hand over the possession of the schedule mentioned property;
ii)an injunction restraining the second defendant or his servants or agents or anybody on his behalf from interfering in any way of the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the premises No.12, Amman Koil Street, Park Town, Madras -3;
_______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.It is also contended that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.2517 of 1983 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for an injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, as the suit was filed for a bare injunction and not for declaration of title. The plaintiff further contended that the pooja room in the suit property is his private property and it is not a public Temple. It is also contended that the first defendant, being a Public Officer, notice, as contemplated under Section 80 CPC, was issued.
51.The defendants 3 to 15, who are the tenants against whom the plaintiff had sought an injunction apart from the first and second defendants, who are the Commissioner, HR & CE Department and the Fit Person appointed by the first defendant and sought for rendition of accounts and to pay a sum of Rs.21,600/- as rent, which was collected from the tenants by the first and second respondents.
52.The second defendant in the suit, namely, the Fit Person, had contended that installation of the Deity was there when the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property vide Ex-A8 on 24.01.1980, which demonstrates that there existed a Temple. However, it is pertinent to note that the first defendant in the _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis suit, the Commissioner of HR & CE Department has not filed their written statement and had simply adopted the written statement filed by the Fit Person. The Fit Person/second defendant/second respondent was appointed by the first defendant by exercising the statutory powers conferred under the HR & CE Act. It is also to be noted that the first defendant/Commissioner HR & CE Department, has not taken a specific stand with regard to the nature of the Temple whether it is a public Temple or a private Temple, as per the HR & CE Act. In the absence of any order passed by the first respondent, namely, Commissioner, HR & CE Department and in the absence of any pleadings by way of a written statement by him to assert that the Temple in dispute is a public Temple, it could not be considered as a public Temple, just because a hundial is installed.