Dismissed

Sri Esanya Sivachariar v. C.Ramakrishna Mudaliar

Madras HC4 Jul 2014CS/456/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff, claiming status as Madathipathi of a Mutt, sued for declaration of title to salt pans and ownership, and for injunction. The court dismissed the suit for failure to produce documents proving the Mutt's existence, the plaintiff's status, or ownership of the properties, noting the defendant never claimed to be a trustee.

What did the court decide?

Civil Suit dismissed with no costs.

Sri Esanya Sivachariar Vs C.Ramakrishna Mudaliar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.07.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN

¶6

Tr.C.S.No.456 of 1995

¶7

Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt by Sole Swamigal Sri Vaidyanathan

¶8

Prayer:- Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code praying for a judgment and decree (a) to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff Sri K.R. Vaidyanathan alone is the sole owner to the plaintiff Mutt and to cultivate salt int he suit salt pans; (b) declaring that the defendant is not the trustee to the plaintiff mutt; (c) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and his men from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and (d) directing the defendant to pay costs of this suit to plaintiff.

¶9

For Plaintiff : Mr. B. Balavijayan

¶10

Defendant : Mr. S.L. Sudarsanam

¶11

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The plaintiff claiming himself to be the Madathipathi

¶13

¶14

of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt" has come up with

¶15

this Civil Suit for a declaration that he is the Swamigal of the Mutt entitled to cultivate salt in the suit salt pans and for a further declaration that the defendant is not a trustee of the said Mutt besides praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents and men from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶16

Case of the plaintiff:

¶17

According to the plaintiff "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt" was established about 100 years back and it is located at Mayiladuthurai. The Mutt is the private property of the Madathipathi. There is a deity in the Mutt by name "Sri Esiyania Moorthy". The Madathipathi is doing daily poojas to the deity. The plaintiff is stated to be the adopted son of Thiru Somanatha Iyer, who is none other

¶18

than his maternal grandfather. After the death of Thiru Somanatha Iyer, the plaintiff became the Madathipathi and Swamigal.

¶19

to the plaint absolutely belongs to the plaintiff Mutt. The

¶20

defendant was given lease of the salt pans covered by

¶21

licence Nos.1, 10 and 20 subject to payment of rent. The defendant accepted the lease and paid rent originally. The

¶22

defendant later claimed himself to be the trustee of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Mutt and failed to pay the subsequent rents. The

¶24

¶25

defendant made an attempt to transfer the license granted by the Salt Commissioner in his name to the detriment of the Mutt. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for declaration and consequential injunction.

¶26

Defense:

¶27

The defendant filed a detailed written statement in

¶28

answer to the averments contained in the plaint. The defendant admitted that Thiru Vaidyanathan, the present Madathipathi is the sole Swamigal of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt". According to the defendant he never denied the right of Sri Vaidyanathan to officiate as Madathipathi of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt". The defendant contended that the suit properties originally belonged to Tmt. Swarnathammal, wife of Jamindar Sattiappa Muthuswami Mudaliar.The said Swarnathammal was in exclusive possession of the suit property and she enjoyed it to the exclusion of others. She executed a Will dated 14 April 1888, whereby and whereunder the suit property along with other properties were given to Thiru Muthukumaraswami Mudaliar of Choonambedu Village. The beneficiary had been

¶29

in possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by the Will. The testator directed Sri Muthukumaraswami Mudaliar to perform the charities and rituals connected with the temples and "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt" in Villupakkam Village of Choonambedu. The Will also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

contained a statement with regard to the hereditary right

¶31

¶32

of trusteeship that belonged to the testator and her

¶33

family with a further stipulation that the legatee would be entitled to succeed her for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the temple. There was a partition in the family

¶34

of Thiru Arunachala Mudaliar. The suit properties were

¶35

allotted to the share of Thiru Arunachala Mudliar. He has

¶36

been exploiting the salt licences and his right was

¶37

recognised by the Department of Salt, Government of India. By virtue of the settlement deed executed by Thiru Arunachala Mudaliar, the suit properties have become the

¶38

absolute properties of the defendant. The defendant has

¶39

been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the strength of the deed of settlement.

¶40

Muthukumaraswami Mudaliar had acquired the hereditary right

¶41

of trusteeship relating to the temples mentioned in the

¶42

Will and also the Mutt for the purpose of performing the obligation indicated in the Will. The defendant has taken a

¶43

further contention that the suit property belongs to him

¶44

and the plaintiff has no right, title, interest or

¶45

possession in respect of the same.

¶46

The issues:

¶47

consideration:-

¶48

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

declaration that he is the sole Swamigal/Madathipathi of

¶50

¶51

"Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt".

¶52

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that he is the owner of the salt pans and entitled to cultivate the same.

¶53

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of

¶54

declaration that the defendant is not a trustee of the

¶55

plaintiff Muttt?

¶56

permanent injunction restraining the defendant from

¶57

interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of

¶58

the suit property?

¶59

Evidence:

¶60

defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked on his side.

¶61

Submissions:

¶62

The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the suit salt pans absolutely belongs to the plaintiff

¶63

Mutt. The plaintiff has been possessing the salt pans from time immemorial. The defendant was enjoying the licences to

¶64

manufacture salt on the basis of the leases given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the Madathipathi of "Sri

¶65

Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt" is entitled to cultivate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶66

salt in the suit salt pans to the exclusion of the

¶67

¶68

defendant. The plaintiff was appointed as the successor of Thiru Somanatha Iyer by his Will dated 28 November 1982 and as such he is entitled for a declaration with regard to his status.

¶69

The learned counsel for the defendant contended

¶70

that at no point of time the salt pans were in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the salt pans. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that the salt pans belonged to the trust and it was given on lease to the defendant.

¶71

Discussion:

¶72

The suit was originally filed before the District

¶73

Munsif Court, Tindivanam, which was later transferred to Sub Court, Tindivanam and thereafter to this Court on 28 March 1995 and it was re-numbered as Tr.C.S.No.456 of 1995.

¶74

Issue No.1:

¶75

The plaintiff has come up with a contention that

¶76

he is the Madathipathi and sole Swamigal of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt" located at Mayiladuthurai. The plaintiff has made a claim that he was appointed as Madathipathi and successor of Thiru Somanatha Iyer. Even though the plaintiff placed heavy reliance on the Will dated 28 November 1982, no such Will was produced before

¶77

this Court. The plaintiff has taken a further contention https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶78

that in accordance with the Will dated 28 November 1982

¶79

¶80

pattabishegam was done to him on 1 June 1983 and he was declared as Swamigal to the Mutt. However, there are no documents before this Court except the certificate issued by the local Tahsildar to show that the plaintiff was appointed as the Madathipathi of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt". It is true that the defendant has not disputed the claim made by the plaintiff that he is the Madathipathi of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt". However, that would not give a right to the plaintiff to obtain a decree for declaration that he is the Madathipathi and Swamigal of the Mutt. Since the plaintiff claimed that he was appointed as the Madathipathi on the strength of the Will, the said document should have been marked as

¶81

an exhibit. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any such document to prove his status as Madathipathi. The plaintiff wanted a declaration with regard to his status. He should produce sufficient materials to prove the existence of a Mutt and the status claimed by him. The author of Ex.P.11 was not examined to prove the said document.Mere marking of document alone is not sufficient. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of status must

¶82

plead and prove the status to the satisfaction of Court. He should also satisfy the ingredients of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Since documents are not produced

¶83

before this Court to establish the status and there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nothing to show the denial of status, the plaintiff is not

¶84

¶85

entitled to a decree of declaration. The first issue is therefore answered against the plaintiff.

¶86

Issue No.2:

¶87

Though the plaintiff has come up with a contention that he is entitled to the suit property as it belongs to "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt", there is nothing on record to show that the salt lands belonged to the Mutt. The plaintiff in a matter of this nature must establish the title to the suit properties. In Exs.P.14 and P.15, copy of letters sent by the plaintiff to the Salt Commissioner, it was stated that the Mutt is the owner of salt pan. However, there are no documents before this Court to substantiate the claim regarding ownership of the suit property. The fact that the defendant has certain amount on certain occasions would not give a right to the plaintiff to obtain a decree of declaration that the Mutt is the owner of the

¶88

suit property and therefore is entitled to cultivate the salt pan.

¶89

The plaintiff in the plaint in C.S.No.456 of 1995 laid a claim for the licences bearing Nos.1 and 10 at

¶90

Marakkanam Village and Licence No.20 at Chonambedu Village. However, the plaintiff in his evidence restricted the claim to licence Nos.1 and 20 alone. The plaintiff has not produced any document to prove his right in respect of

¶91

these licences. The plaintiff therefore miserably failed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶92

prove the ownership of the suit property and his right to

¶93

¶94

cultivate the same. The second issue is according decided against the plaintiff.

¶95

Issue No.3:

¶96

The plaintiff seeks a further declaration that the defendant is not the trustee of the Mutt. The defendant nowhere claimed that he is the trustee of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt" located at Mayiladuthurai. In

¶97

fact, in his written statement and more particularly in paragraph 4, the defendant very clearly stated that he never denied the right of Sri Vaidyanathan to officiate as Madathipathi of "Sri Esanya Sivachariyar Swamigal Mutt". Similarly, in paragarh 9 of the written statement the defendant stated that he never claimed any right as trustee of the Mutt. In order to obtain a decree of declaration that the defendant is not a trustee of the Mutt, there

¶98

should be materials to show that he is claiming himself to be a trustee. Since the defendant very clearly stated that he never claimed any right as trustee of the Mutt there is

¶99

no need for a declaration under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. The third issue is answered accordingly.

¶100

Issue No.4:

¶101

The plaintiff miserably failed to prove that the

¶102

suit properties belonged to the Mutt. The question of passing a decree of injunction would arise only in case the

¶103

plaintiff has proved that he is in possession of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶104

property and that the defendant made an attempt to

¶105

¶106

interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. I have already held that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership and possession of the suit properties. There is no question of granting a decree of injunction in favour of

¶107

the plaintiff in view of his failure to prove the right in

¶108

respect of the suit properties. The fourth issue is accordingly answered against the plaintiff.

¶109

In the upshot, I dismiss the Civil Suit. No costs.
sd/.K.K.S.J
04.07.2014
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2015.
R.s/25.02.2015 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of
the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶110

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sri Esanya Sivachariar v. C.Ramakrishna Mudaliar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Esanya Sivachariar v. C.Ramakrishna Mudaliar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Venugopal Vs S.Venkatraman

Farooque Dadabhoy Vs Dr. Usha S.Bhat

R.Natarajan Vs Vikram Kapur

S.Mohan Vs the Registrar

M/S Packirisamy Unloading Vs the Union of India, through

V.Sundaravel, Vs the Joint Registrar of