9.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the tank which belongs to Sri Kanchi Kamakodi Peedathipathi Jagathguru Sri Sankarachariya Swamigal Shri Mutt, Kanchipuram. The plaintiff contended that the lease was granted in his favour in the year 1979 and he has been making a payment of Rs.40/- per fasli to the Mutt. However, the defendants contended that the lease was granted in favour of their father Krishna Padayachi @ Krishnasamy Padayachi and that after his demise, the plaintiff and defendants being the sons of the said Krishna Padayachi @ Krishnasamy Padayachi were catching the fish by rotation. Though the defendants have contended that they were catching the fish by rotation along with the plaintiff, they have not produced a single document to substantiate the said contention. That apart, the owner of the tank, namely the Mutt, issued Ex.A.6-certificate issued by the Manager stating that the lease was granted only in favour of the plaintiff. That apart, the rental receipts were also issued in favour of the plaintiff, which were also marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.7 is the notice issued by the Mutt. The manager of the Mutt was also examined as P.W.4 and he also supported the case of the plaintiff stating that the lease was granted only in his favour. P.W.4 is the author of Ex.A.6. In the absence of any evidence produced by the defendants, the Courts below have concurrently dismissed both the suits. When the Mutt itself is supporting the case of the plaintiff, one cannot disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and give a finding in favour of the defendants. If the contention of the defendants are true, they could have produced the documents in support of their case. The Courts below have rightly decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
