Annamalai ... Appellant / PlaintiffHerediatary TrusteeSri Angalamman Koil Manjakkuppam, Cuddalore v. Govindan (died) & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.06.2010 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALS.A. No.1445 of 1992andCMP No.14361 of 2002Annamalai ... Appellant / PlaintiffHerediatary TrusteeSri Angalamman Koil Manjakkuppam, CuddaloreVs. 1.Govindan (died)2.Thillaiammal3.Natarajan4.Vaidinathan5.Raju Naidu (died)6.Selvaraj (died)7.Sekar8.Ramadoss (died)9.G.Rathiambal10.R.Rajeswari Ammal11.Chandru12.Mohan13.Vasanthi14.Ganesan15.R.Karthick16.Kanagavel ... Respondents/Defendantsand Nil.(R9, R10 to R12, R13 and R14, R15 and R16 are brought on record asL.Rs. of the deceased R1, R5, R6 and R8 respectively vide order ofthis Court dated 20.06.2008 in C.M.P.Nos.13782 to 13784/02, 13785 to13787/02, 13788 to 13790/02 and 13791/02 respectively.)Prayer: Appeal filed under Section of 100 of C.P.C. against theJudgment and Decree dated 26.6.1991 made in A.S.No.79 of 1991 on thefile of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore confirming theJudgment and Decree dated 12.10.1990 made in O.S.No.1000 of 1988 onthe file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant :Mr.J.Ramakrishnan for M/s.M.S.Krishna and S.ParthasarathyFor Respondents :Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi for RR2 to 4,7,9 to 11, 13 and 14 No Appearance for RR12,15 & 16 RR1,5,6 & 8 - DiedJ U D G M E N TThe Appellant/Hereditary Trustee of Plaintiff's Temple hasfiled this second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated26.06.1991 in A.S.No.79 of 1981 passed by the Learned Principal SubJudge, Cuddalore.2.The Learned First Appellate Authority viz., the Principal SubJudge, Cuddalore in the Judgment in A.S.No.79 of 1991 dated26.06.1991 has among other things observed that 'theAppellant/Hereditary Trustee has failed to prove that the suitproperty belonged to the Plaintiff's Temple and further, thePlaintiff Temple also failed to prove that the Defendants havedefault in regard to the payment of rent and added further, it hasheld that the Defendants have acquired adverse possession by virtueof long enjoyment in the suit property and also has come to theconclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, thePlaintiff/Temple is not entitled to get the relief of recovery ofpossession and mesne profits and ultimately dismissed the appeal withcosts.'3. The trial Court has framed six issues for trial. On behalfof the Appellant/Plaintiff, witness P.W1 has been examined and Exs.A1to A22 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, D.Ws.1 to 7have been examined and Exs.B1 to B54 have been marked. Also, theCommissioner's Report and Plan have been marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.4. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the trial Court has come to the conclusion thatthe Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit propertybelonged to the Plaintiff's Temple and that the Defendants haveacquired Adverse possession pursuant to their long enjoyment and thatthe suit is barred by Limitation and consequently, dismissed the suitwithout costs.5. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment passed by the LearnedFirst Appellate Authority viz., the Principal Judge, Cuddalore inA.s.No.79 of 1991 dated 26.06.1991, the Appellant/Hereditary Trusteeof the Plaintiff's Temple has filed the present second Appeal beforethis Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Courthas framed the following substantial question of law:Whether the Judgments of the Courts below are vitiated by theirfailure to consider the entire evidence on record and apply thecorrect principles of Law?CONTENTIONS:7.According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff,the First Appellate Authority has not taken into account of Ex.A5Certified copy of the Town Survey Field Register which clearlyproves that the suit property in T.S.No.1665 belong to thePlaintiff's Temple and the contra finding is an erroneous one andfurther more, Ex.A3 the Certified copy of the Judgment dated03.08.1989 in O.S.No.733 of 1986 and Ex.A4 the certified copy of theMeeting Proceedings of the Temple go to prove clearly that the suitfiled by the Plaintiff's Temple is maintainable in Law, but thisaspect of the matter has not been adverted to by the First AppellateAuthority in the Judgment in A.S. No.76/91 dated 26.06.1991.8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for theAppellant/Plaintiff submits that the First Appellate Authority hasnot taken into account of Ex.B52 Settlement Deed dated 03.09.1965executed by Veerappa Padaiyachi in favour of Anandhayee Ammal whichproves the title of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff'sTemple. That apart, the present Appellant is the second Plaintiff inO.S.No.733 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court,Cuddalore wherein the suit has been filed by the Temple to evict oneDevaraj from the property belonging to the Temple and this vitalaspect of the matter proves not only the title of the property of theTemple but also proves the competency of the Appellant to file thepresent suit as Hereditary Trustee. It is the further contention onthe side of the Appellant that if he establishes that he is theHereditary Trustee then he can still maintain the suit as anworshipper and retain the possession of the property by filing a suiton behalf of the Temple and as a matter of fact, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4prove convincingly that the Appellant is a Hereditary Trustee of thesuit Temple and also, in the Judgment in O.S.No.300 of 1990 dated13.03.1992 passed by the Sub Court, Cuddalore, theAppellant/Plaintiff has been held to be the Hereditary Trustee of thesuit Temple.9. Lastly, the Learned counsel for the Appellant submits thatas per Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act 1959, unless a person in possession is able to provethe factum of Adverse possession even before 30.09.1951 he will notbe in a position to claim the relief of adverse possession but thisaspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the First Appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Authority and indeed, there is no question of Appellant/Plaintiff'sTemple title being lost by the Law of Limitation and therefore praysfor allowing the Appeal in furtherance of substantial cause ofjustice.10. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the Respondentssupports the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts belowand submits that the suit property belongs to the Defendants 1 to 7by virtue of their long possession of 40 years and more and in fact,the Defendants 1 to 7 have put up construction and that the rentstated in the plaint in respect of the Defendants 1 to 7 are false.11. Further also, never before the Appellant/Plaintiff oranybody else demanded rent from the Defendants and as such, theconclusions arrived at by both the Courts below that theAppellant/Plaintiff has not proved the fact that the suit propertybelongs to the Plaintiff's Temple and further that the Defendantshave acquired adverse possession by long enjoyment need not beinterfered with by this Court.12. The Learned counsel for the Appellant cites the decision ofthe Court ARUNACHALA UDAYAR AND ANOTHER V. ELAYAPERUMAL, (2009) 2MLJ 153, wherein it is held that 'when the findings of the Court onfacts are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence, theHigh Court is not precluded from interfering with concurrentfindings." Also, in the abovesaid Judgment, it is observedas follows: "When subsequent to filing of the suit forpermanent injunction, there is encroachment by thedefendant, the lower Appellate Court was notjustified in dismissing the suit on the ground thatPlaintiffs have not amended the plaint seeking formandatory injunction."He also relies on the decision of this Court CHANDRASEKHARANPILLAI AND OTHERS V. MUTHU BOGI (DECD.) AND OTHERS, 1969 (1) MLJ 643,wherein it is held thus:"In such a suit the relief of possession couldalso be granted in favour of the worshippers as evena worshipper of a Temple is entitled to take steps toregain possession of the trust property which is inthe possession of a trespasser, if the lawful trusteehas not taken any steps in that regard. But thedecree for possession granted in favour of suchworshippers is neither in their individual rights norin their capacity as representing any particulargroup or community to the exclusion of others havingequal rights. The decree could be in their favourpurely as worshippers and it will be open to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lawful trustee to take possession from them at anytime."He draws the attention of this Court to the decisionSUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS V. SRI DEVANATHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM, REP. BY ITSEXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI S. VEERAPPAN AND ANOTHER, (2007) 3 MLJ 85 atpage 86, wherein it is held as follows:"Where the suit property belongs to ReligiousInstitution i.e. Temple, as per the principle of"Parent Patriarch," Court is the custodian of theidol property and disputed land belongs to idol andthe plea of adverse possession is not sustainablesince Temple land is protected under Section 109 ofTamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct."He seeks in aid to the decision of this Court RANJITKUMAR V GOPALAND ANOTHER, (2003) 1 MLJ 573, wherein it is held hereunder: "That the revision petitioner has been set upby his father, the second respondent herein to stallthe execution of the decree obtained by the firstrespondent against the second respondent. The ordercannot be stated to be in error of jurisdiction orunjust since the second respondent had got a propertyfor himself thanks to the large heartedness of thefirst respondent and his sisters who with a view tofulfil the wishes of their mother settled the otherproperty in favour of the second respondent. Hehaving secured another property, it will be theheight of injustice if we are to countenance hisclaim to get at the suit property through his son,the revision petitioner." DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:13. The Appellant/Hereditary Trustee of the Plaintiff's Templein the plaint has averred that the schedule properties being aportion of the vacant site in T.S.No.1665within the Municipal limitsof Cuddalore belongs to Sri Angalamman Koil, Manjakuppam and theentire site adjoining the Temple and it is situated in T.S.No.1666.Added further, he is the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple and thatthe Defendants have entered upon the property and put up the huts.Further, Defendants 1 to 7 have been using the property forresidential purpose while the 8th Defendant is running a shop inanimal feeds. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. Further, it is averred that when the Appellant/Plaintiffbecame the Trustee of the Temple in the year 1980 by hereditarysuccession and after taking over the Management, he apprised theDefendants about the rights of the Temple and their liability to payrent. The Defendants undertook to pay the rents to the Plaintiffs atdifferent rates, the variations depending on the respective areas ofthe occupation from 01.12.1983. The first defendant agreed to payRs.50/-, the Second Defendant Rs.30/-, the third Defendant Rs.30/-,the fourth defendant Rs.30/-, the fifth Defendant Rs.50/-, the sixthDefendant Rs.20/-, the seventh Defendant Rs.25/- and the eighthDefendant Rs.50/-. 15. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that the Defendantscontrary to their undertakings have failed to pay the rent to theAppellant/Plaintiff which necessitated the issuance of notice to someof the Defendants and except the Eighth Defendant, the others havereplied by denying title of the Temple to the suit property and thatthere can be no adverse possession against the property belonging tothe Temple which is in the nature of a public trust.16. The Appellant/Plaintiff in the suit has prayed for a Decreein respect of recovery of vacant possession of the properties in therespective possession of the Defendants.17. The Defendants 1 to 7 in their Written Statement havepleaded that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not the Hereditary Trusteeand as a matter of fact, there is no Hereditary Trustee or successionat all and that they have raised construction living there for thepast 40 years and more. Never before, the Plaintiff or anyone elsedemanded rent from them. The Defendants 1 to 7 projected a plea thatthe rent mentioned in the plaint for them are all false and the suitproperties belong to them and since each one of the Defendants has aseparate title and possession of the properties in question, the suitis barred for misjoinder of parties.18. The 8th Defendant in his Written Statement has inter aliastated that he has raised construction and has been carrying onbusiness for the past 45 years and more and never before, thePlaintiff or anybody else demanded rent from them and further, he isnot a tenant at any time under the Plaintiff or anyone else.19. It is useful to refer to the evidence of the HereditaryTrustee of the Plaintiff's Temple who has been examined before thetrial Court as P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that thesuit property belonged to Angalamman Temple in S.Nos.1665 and 1666and that he is the trustee of the Plaintiff's Temple and prior to theDefendants occupation, the suit property is remained as a vacant siteand that the Defendants 1 to 7 have constructed presently residentialhouse and the 8th Defendant has constructed one shop and after hisfather's death in the year 1980, he has taken over administration of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Temple and informed the 8th Defendant in this regard. P.W1 in hisfurther evidence has deposed that he has mentioned the Defendant'soccupation of the place approximately and further, he has mentionedabout the rent amount and when he demanded the rent from them, thedefendants refused to pay the same and he is paying the ground rentto Municipality.20. Continuing further, it is the evidence of P.W1 that Ex.A1is the Receipt dated 12.09.1986 for Rs.13.50 remitted by him asTrustee to the Hindu Religious Endowment Board and again, he hasremitted the same amount Ex.A2 Receipt dated 29.09.1986 and asagainst one Devaraj, he filed a suit O.S.No.133 of 1984 in hiscapacity as a Trustee and in the said suit, it is held that theproperty belonged to the Temple and the Judgment copy is Ex.A3 andthe Minutes of the Temple is marked as Ex.A4.21. That apart, it is the evidence of P.W1 that the Defendantsare residing in T.S.No.1665 and one Defendant is residing inT.S.No.1666 and Ex.A5 is the Field Map Extract obtained from theMunicipality to show that the suit property belonged to the Templeand the certified copy of the Field Map is Ex.A6 and one KothandabaniPillai has filed a suit O.S.no.175 of 1965 against them and the saidsuit ended in a compromise and the compromise Decree is marked asEx.A7 and it is mentioned that Kothandabani Pillai and GovindasamyChettiyar are remained as Temple Trustees and later, their sons willhave to serve as Trustees.22. It is not out of place for this Court to point out that PW1in his evidence has stated that the Defendants have entered in theproperty in the year 1972 and the present huts have been put up 10years before and since the income of the Temple has been affected, hehas filed the present suit for recovery of possession.23. PW1 (in his cross-examination) has deposed that he hasfiled the suit in the capacity of Hereditary Trustee and that he isnot claiming right in other aspects and the suit property has beeninspected by the Court Commissioner and at that time, he has beenpresent and that he has seen the Commissioner's Report.24. Proceeding further, PW1 in his cross-examination has statedthat some of the Defendants are residing and some of them are runningthe shops and he does not know when the Defendants have constructedtheir houses and they have constructed them during his father's lifetime and Kothandabani is alive and when he remained as a Trustee andduring his Trusteeship, the houses have been there and that hisfather expired in the year 1980. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. PW1 in his evidence has proceeded to state that theDefendants have constructed cement buildings and one Natarajan hasput up a superstructure made of asbestos.26. PW1 in his cross-examination has categorically admittedthat he filed a petition before HR and CE Board claiming HereditaryTrusteeship in respect of the suit Temple and that the same has beendismissed and also, failed before the HR and CE Commissioner in thisregard and he has not filed the plaint of Sub Court and that theDefendants have paid rent during his father's time for which thereare no accounts and in Ex.A5, it is mentioned as 'Natham'.27. It is the evidence of DW1 (First Defendant) that he hasconstructed a house in the suit property which is 50 years old andthe House Tax Receipts paid by him is Exs.B1 to B8 and that he hasservice connection to his house and the property belongs to him andit is not correct to state that there has been a oral and rentalAgreement between the Trustee and him in the year 1983 and till date,he has not paid rent to anyone and that PW1 has no right to file thepresent suit.28. DW1 (the First Defendant) in his cross-examination hasstated that PW1 is the Temple Priest and that the Receipts are afterthe year 1983 and before that, no House Tax Receipts have beencollected and that he has not obtained the Record to find out as towho is the owner of the suit property vacant site and that he has notpaid tax for the vacant site and there is no record for the vacantsite and there is no record to show his 40 years enjoyment and he hasalso not filed document to show the right to Gokilammal and that sheis not alive.29. DW2 (the Second Defendant) in her evidence has stated thatshe has constructed a stone house in the suit property and thesuperstructure has been constructed 40 years before and that she hasspent a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the house tax paid are Exs.B9 and B11in the name of her husband and Ex.B12 is the application given to theMunicipality for reducing the tax.30. DW2 in her cross-examination has specifically stated thatthey have come to know before 25 years that the suit property is aporamboke one and till date, the suit property is a poramboke andthat the Appellant(PW1) conducts poojas and festival and they areresiding for 60 years. 31. It is the evidence of DW3 (the third Defendant) that he hasconstructed a stone house and put up sheet in the suit property andthat he has not paid the rent and the suit property belongs to themand it is incorrect to state that the suit property belongs to theTemple and further, it is incorrect to state that the Plaintiff isthe Hereditary Trustee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. It is the evidence of DW4 (the Fourth Defendant) that hehas put up a stone wall and a hut in the suit property and that thesuit property is a poramboke and that he does not belong to thePlaintiff's Temple and that he has not paid the rent and it isincorrect to state that the Plaintiff is the Hereditary Trustee ofthe suit Temple.33. It is the evidence of DW5 (the Fifth Defendant) that he hasconstructed a house and put up superstructure which is 45 years oldand that he has spent a sum of Rs.12,000/- and that the suit propertybelongs to them and it is incorrect to state that the suit propertybelongs to the Temple and from the year 1983, there is no RentalAgreement and it is incorrect to state that the Plaintiff is theHereditary Trustee of the Temple.34. DW6 (the Sixth Defendant) in his evidence has stated thathe has constructed a hut house in the suit property and that he hasrenovated and constructed the same and that the suit site belongs toAnanthayee Ammal and Ex.B52 is the Settlement Deed dated 05.09.1965executed by Veerappa Padayachi in favour of Anandhayeeammal and inthe suit O.S.170/1965, Ananthayeeammal is the 9th Defendant and thatthe suit has been dismissed against the 9th Defendant and it isincorrect to state that there has been a Rental Agreement and theyare agreed to pay rent also, it is incorrect to state the Plaintiffis the Trustee.35. DW7 (the Seventh Defendant) in his evidence has stated thatright from his birth, he is residing in the suit place and he hasconstructed a stone house using cement and that he is paying thehouse tax Exs.B54, B55 and before Palani, one Ponnusamy has residedand Ponnusamy is figured as the Seventh Defendant in O.S.No.170/1965and the said suit has been dismissed and the suit property belongs tohim.36. It is a well accepted principle of Law that in a Civil Suita Plaintiff has to prove his case on the basis of pleadingsprojected. In the instant case, the Appellant/Plaintiff thoughclaims to be the Hereditary Trustee and come out with a case that theDefendants have agreed to pay rents depending on the respective areasand occupation from 01.12.1983 to him like Rs.50/-, 30/-, 50/- etc.,he has admitted in evidence that PW1 there is no record to show forthe collection of rent. When the Defendants have denied the quantumof rent and the Rental Agreement and when they claim that they arethe owners of the houses/superstructures put up by them and they havebeen in possession for 40 years or more. It is clear that they havedenied the title of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the proper course forthe Appellant/Plaintiff is that the suit should have been filed forthe relief of Declaration that the Plaintiff/Temple is the owner ofthe suit property. However, a scrutiny of the plaint reveals that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the suit only for recovery ofpossession. In short, the Appellant/Plaintiff has not proved thetenancy of the Defendants with the Temple, in the considered opinionof this Court. In the absence of declaratory relief as to the Templebeing preferred for by the Appellant/Plaintiff, in regard to theownership of the suit property, the Appellant/Plaintiff cannot seekrecovery of possession from the Defendants.37. In regard to the plea of the Appellant that even as aWorshipper he is entitled to file a suit on behalf of the Temple,this Court points out that the Plaintiff in the plaint has notpleaded that he has filed the suit in the capacity of a Worshipperand therefore, the Appellant's plea in this regard is not accepted bythis Court.38. Coming to the plea of the Appellant that Ex.A5, thecertified copy of the Cuddalore Town Survey Field Register comes tothe rescue of the Appellant/Plaintiff's Temple wherein it ismentioned as Angalamman Temple, in Survey Field 1665, it is to bepointed out that the same will not confer title and it will not be aproof of title of the Temple in respect of the suit property.Significantly, in Ex.A5, it is mentioned as Private Natham and in theRemarks Column 19, it is mentioned as Thatched House Natham. No onefrom the Revenue Authority has been examined as a witness on behalfof the Appellant/Plaintiff to prove that S.F.No.1665 belongs to thePlaintiff's Temple absolutely. Equally, is not proved to thesatisfaction of this Court on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff thatthe suit property belongs to the Temple absolutely. Only if theAppellant/Plaintiff establishes that the Temple is the owner of thesuit property, the plea of Adverse possession pleaded by theDefendants in the suit cannot be sustained as per Section 109 of theTamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Inthe absence of proof that the Temple is the owner of the suitproperty, the Respondents/Defendants are justified in taking the pleaof Adverse possession. 39. Merely because in Ex.B52 Settlement Deed dated 03.09.1965executed by Veerappa Padayachi in favour of Anandayee Ammal a mentionis made that the land in T.S.No.1665 belongs to Angalamman Templethat itself will not prove the ownership of the plaintiff's temple inthe suit property, as opined by this Court. Also, when theRespondents/Defendants have constructed brick house, staircase house,hut house etc., and residing there for long number of years thenfiling a single suit against them by the Appellant/Plaintiff is notlegally a proper and valid one in the eye of Law.40. Dealing with the contention of the Learned counsel for theAppellant that in O.S.No.300 of 1990 filed by the Appellant (PW1) onthe file of the Sub Judge, Cuddalore wherein he has been declared asa Hereditary Trustee along with the First Defendant (Deceased https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kothandabani) therein and since the First Defendant has expired, theFifth Defendant one Thillai Govindan has been declared to be theHereditary Trustee along with the Appellant, this Court points outthat the present suit O.S.No.1000 of 1988 has been filed before thetrial Court only in the name of the Appellant as Trustee of thePlaintiff's Temple and the Fifth Defendant in O.S.300/1990 ThillaiGovindan has not joined with the Appellant to file the said suit andtherefore, this Court is of the considered view that the suitO.S.No.1000 of 1988 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff is notmaintainable for non joinder of necessary party. Further, ittranspires from Ex.C1 Commissioner's Report that the Defendants 1 to7 have put up cement constructions and huts thereon and in fact thereare 8 schedule of properties of Defendants 1 to 7 and they aredenoted as A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in Ex.C2 Plan with measurementsand physical features. The Commissioner has also stated in hisReport that all the schedule of properties mentioned in the Plan arehaving old roofs with old cement plasterings and old cement flooringsand each schedule property is having one separate hand bore pump.CMP 14361/2002:-41. Though the Petitioner/Appellant has filed CMP No.14361 of2002 under Or.41 R.27 of Civil Procedure Code praying permission ofthis Court to receive the certified copy of Judgment and Decree inO.S.No.300/1990 as Additional documents, inasmuch as the otherTrustee, the Fifth Defendant therein has not joined along with thepresent Appellant/Plaintiff to file suit in O.S.No.1000 of 1988, thesuit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party and inany event, since the Appellant has not sought a declaratory relief inregard to the Appellant's ownership of the suit property, these twodocuments will not improve or heighten the case of the Plaintiff andin that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow thismiscellaneous petition to receive the additional documents andaccordingly, the same is dismissed. CONCLUSION:-42. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstancesof the case in a cumulative fashion and in the light of thediscussions mentioned supra, this Court comes to an inevitableconclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff ought to have filed the suitfor declaration that the Plaintiff/Temple is the owner of the suitproperty and that a suit filed for the relief of recovery ofpossession alone is not maintainable when the Defendants have deniedthe ownership/title of the Plaintiff's Temple and moreover, theAppellant/Plaintiff has not pleaded anywhere in the plaint that hehas filed a suit as a Worshipper and in fact, the Appellant/Plaintiffhas not proved the factum of tenancy between the parties and further,since the Appellant/Plaintiff has not filed the present suitO.S.1000/1988 along with the Fifth Defendant viz., son of the First https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Defendant in O.S.300/1990, the suit filed is not per se maintainableand viewed in that perspective, this Court comes to an inescapableconclusion that both the Courts have considered the entire evidenceon record and applied the correct principles and consequently, thesubstantial question of law is answered against theAppellant/Plaintiff.43. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed leaving theparties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Judgmentand Decree passed by both the Courts below in A.S.No.79 of 1991dated 26.6.1991 and O.S.No.1000 of 1988 dated 12.10.1990 areconfirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in the SecondAppeal. The connected C.M.P.No.14361 of 2002 is also dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvriTo1. The Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore.2. The Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.1 cc To Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Advocate, SR.468921 cc To M/s.A.L.Gandthimathi, Advocate, SR.47047S.A.NO.1445 OF 1992RSM(CO)sra 12/07/2010