In a second appeal regarding eviction, this court determined that the suit filed by a temple's Executive Officer lacked maintainability because specific authority from the Commissioner had not been obtained, quashing the lower decrees.
The second appeal is allowed; the suit in O.S.No. 7061/2006 stands dismissed as not competent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.No. 469 of 2014
1.B.S.Manian (Died) ..1st Appellant/Defendant 2.B.Vijayalakshmi
3.B.Balasathish
4.B.Karthikadevi ..Appellants 2 to 4/LRS of the sole defendant (Appellants 2 to 4 Brought on records as
Lrs of the Deceased Sole Appellant vide
order dated 23.10.2019 made in CMP No.22290, 22294 and 22295/19 in SA.No.469/14)
Vs.
Arulmigu Yoganarasimhaswami Tirukoil ..Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Memorandum of Second Appeal filed under Section. 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2013 in A.S.No.111 of 2010 on the file of the VI-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 in O.S.No. 7061 of 2006 on the file of the VII – Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi
For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Sriram for
Mr.A.K.Kailasam & Associates
The defendant in O.S.No. 7061 of 2006 has come up with this second appeal having suffered a decree for eviction in a suit instituted by the plaintiff claiming that the defendant is a tenant in respect of 2,205 sq.ft. of land in Survey No.438 at Velachery Village.
“a) Whether the Courts below erred in granting a decree for recovery of possession when the plaintiff temple has not proved its title and specifically when the defendant has denied the title of the temple?
b) Whether the Courts below erred in not considering the fact that the suit property has been classified as gramanathan only in the revenue records and the same does not belonged to the temple and under such circumstances, granting a decree for recovery of possession ?”
i) Whether the suit filed by the Executive Officer without proper authorization from the Commissioner (HR & CE) is maintainable ?
Division Bench of this Court in Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi reported in 2003 (1) LW 386 has held that an Executive Officer is not empowered to institute suit without express authority conferred on him by the Commissioner (HR & CE). This plea was not raised in the written statement. It appears in cross-examination of D.W.1 a question was put to him regarding the authority required for filing the suit and a copy of the order of the Commissioner (HR &CE) addressed to all Joint Commissioners stating that specific authority is required for institution of suit was marked as Ex.B1. However, the Trial Court had not framed an issue with reference to the maintainability of the suit or the authority of the Executive Officer, who filed suit on behalf of the temple. The lower Appellate Court also has not framed any issue regarding the maintainability of the suit. However, this issue being a strictly legal issue which goes to the root of the matter, I do not think that the appellant should be prevented from raising the issue.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kkn
To:-
S.A.No. 469 of 2014
RSI(CO)
GMY(20/02/2020)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed by the Executive Officer of the temple without proper authorization from the Commissioner (HR & CE) is maintainable?
Whether the Courts below erred in granting a decree for recovery of possession when the plaintiff temple has not proved its title?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy PadayachiApplied¶27
Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi reported in 2003 (1) LW 386
A.S.No.55 of 1986Referred¶30
A.S.No.55 of 1986
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.B.S.Manian (Died) LRS
2.B.Vijayalakshmi
3.B.Balasathish
4.B.Karthikadevi
Arulmigu Yoganarasimhaswami Tirukoil
R. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
