Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

W.P.No.6664 of 2021 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner for entering into his property bearing Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai based on the complaint, dated 15.02.2021.

2.W.P.No.14074 of 2021 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner to safeguard his position in the property situated at Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai.

3.Since the relief sought in both Writ Petitions are similar and the grounds raised by the petitioners are common, this Court disposes the above Writ Petitions by way of common order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6664 of 2021 submitted that the vacant landed property bearing survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai District measuring about 13,200 sq.ft belongs to A.J.Raja Rao Nainar and A.J.Sreepathy Rao Nainar. The petitioner purchased the property from the legal heirs of the above said persons and the sale deed was executed in document No.3824 of 2020 on 14.07.2020. The 4th respondent/temple authorities are disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Earlier, the vendor to the petitioner/Jayaraj's father A.J.Sreepathy Rao Nainar filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif, Arni for declaration of title and permanent injunction to restrain the temple authorities to interfere with the peaceful possession. The other vendor's father A.J.Raja Rao Nainar and the 4th respondent/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Viswanathar Temple, Arani are defendants in the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vendor's predecessor on 26.10.1993 declaring that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant therein have right and valid title over the property and the 4th respondent/temple authorities have no right over the property. This being so, the 4th respondent/temple authorities prevented peaceful enjoyment and possession of the petitioner of the said suit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 property.

11.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 filed the counter and submitted that on 16.07.2020, the defacto complainant Sivaji (A Party), who is Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District and Jayaraj (B Party)/petitioner's vendor have preferred a complaint before the 2nd respondent Police stating that Jayaraj's predecessor Jaya Rao Nainar in the year 1928 purchased a land from the original owner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Arulmighu Kasi Viswanatha Temple, Arni, Thiruvannamalai District. From then on, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the above said land which was verified by the revenue officials viz., the Settlement Officer, Chengalpet in S.R.No.2050 & 2055/Arni/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968. From then on, the said Jaya Rao Nainar was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and after his demise his sons Sreepathi Rao Nainar and Raja Rao Nainar were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Adjacent to the Sreepathi Rao Nainar's property, there is a land which belonging to Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple (A Party). There were some interference in the enjoyment of the above said property. He further submitted that Sreepathi Rao Nainar filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif, Arani and the same had reached the logical end up to the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above.

30.09.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.