Chokalingaswami Idol Thr.
R.N.Pillai Vs. Gnanapragasam (Dead) by LRS [2008] INSC 444 (13 March 2008)
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit
Singh Bedi
Civil Appeal No. 3879 of
2001 Harjit Singh Bedi ,J.
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. It arises out of the
following facts.
2. The appellant idol was installed by one Mirasu Nainar Pillai, the great
grandfather of the trustee R.Nambla Pillai in the year 1872. After the death of
Mirasu Nainar Pillai his son Sattanatha Pillai and after his demise his son Ramalingam
Pillai was performing the ritual pooja. Ramalingam Pillai executed a registered settlement deed dated 21st September
1930 creating a charge over the property mentioned in the deed for meeting the
expenses of the pooja for the deity. In this settlement deed Ramalingam Pillai
clearly recited that the idol had been installed by his grandfather and that
the family had been carrying on the pooja as trustees. It also appears that
Ramalingam Pillai had constructed two houses in the land in question, one for
his residence and the other for rent and that he was maintaining the temple and
idol as per requirement from the income received from the properties. The
appellant also claimed that as per the record, the land belonged to the temple
and that the respondents were taking steps to assign the vacant land to a
society of ex-servicemen which was bent upon encroaching on the suit land. The
appellant accordingly filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction
claiming title to the property as belonging to the idol and that the
respondents were not justified in seeking to encroach upon it. The first
defendant i.e. the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector in
its written statement controverted the plea of the appellant and alleged that
the land did not belong to the idol and that the appellant had no right to
occupy the same as it was poramboke land belonging to the Government. The plea
of the appellant that it was in possession of some of the vacant land was also
controverted by the second and third defendants Gnanapragasam Kombiah Thevar
respectively whereas the fourth defendant, Shanmugathammal, took the plea that
he was in possession of the land in question on payment. The Second Additional
District Munsif, Thirunelveli decreed the suit as prayed. Aggrieved thereby the
second defendant Gnanapragasam alone preferred an appeal in the sub-court,
Tiruveneli. The appeal was allowed, and the suit dismissed holding that the
suit property was Government poramboke land and as such the idol had no right
over the suit property. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff-appellant went before
the High Court in second appeal. The High Court in its judgment dated 10th
January 2001 observed that the finding of the first appellate court that the
suit property was Government poramboke and as such the plaintiff-appellant had
no right over the suit property and that that there was no evidence to show
that the land was indeed the land covered by the settlement deed and concluded
that the finding recorded by the appellate court was fully justified. The High
Court also noted the argument raised by the appellant that as defendant No.1
i.e. the State Government had not preferred any appeal against the order of the
Munsif, the first appellate court was not justified in interfering in the
matter at the instance of the private defendants and dealt with this apparent
anomoly by observing:
"Even though the first defendant, the Government has not preferred any
appeal, it is the duty of the Court to find out, on analysis of oral as well as
documentary evidence, whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property.
The plaintiff has come forward with the suit for declaration of title and
injunction. So, the burden is heavily on the plaintiff to establish the title.
The documents produced prove that only the Government is the owner of the suit
property and the plaintiff has no manner of right. On analysis of such
documentary evidence, the first appellate court has come to the conclusion that
the plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit property. The Court is bound
to analyse the evidence and decide the case of the plaintiff when the plaintiff
has sought for the relief of declaration and injunction. So, it cannot be
stated that since the first defendant, Government did not prefer any appeal,
the first appellate court was not bound to decide the title in respect of the
suit property. The first appellate court, on analysis of the evidence has
clearly found that the documents filed by the plaintiff did not establish that
the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property and as such the finding of fact
on analysis by the first appellate court is perfectly justified."
3. Having held as above, the High Court then went on to consider the
evidence on record and concluded that the land in question was Government
poramboke land and that the other defendants were mere tenants thereon and that
it had no hesitation in holding that the "suit property is a Government
poramboke land and the plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit property
and the finding of the first appellate court is perfectly justified." The
appeal was accordingly dismissed.
4. The only issue raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant is
that in view of the findings of the trial court with regard to the ownership of
the land against the defendant No.1 i.e. the State Government, no appeal had
been filed by the State Government and an appeal had been prepared by only one
of the private co-defendants who was allegedly a lessee of the land in question
and in the light of this situation it was not permissible for the first and
second appellate courts to hold in favour of the State Government and against
the plaintiff-appellant. We find merit in this plea. In paragraph 16 of the
judgment that we have quoted above, the High Court was cognizant of the fact
that it was perhaps over stepping its jurisdiction in the matter but chose to
circumvent the requirement of law in the belief that it was justified in doing
so as the plaintiff-appellant was attempting to swallow Government property. We
are of the opinion, however, that the State Government had accepted the
judgment of the trial court as no appeal had been filed by it. We accordingly
allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the first appellate court and the
High Court dated 21st November 1988 and 10th January 2001 respectively and
restore the judgment of the trial court. There will be no order as costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3