Case Note & Summary
The appellants, originally plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent temple, Sri Pachaiamman Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property originally belonged to Appa Durai Chetty and others, was sold in auction pursuant to a decree in CS No. 14 of 1944, and purchased by C.M. Vadivambal. Thereafter, Vadivambal and her sons sold the property to the plaintiffs' father, K. Jambulinga Mudaliar, under a sale deed dated 30.08.1948. After the father's death, a partition suit (CS No. 191 of 1977) resulted in a compromise decree dated 05.10.1978 allotting the property to the first plaintiff. Subsequently, in a family arrangement in 2000, the property was allotted to the second plaintiff, who paid property tax. The plaintiffs alleged that in 2009, the temple issued a notice claiming ownership and attempted to lock the premises, prompting the suit. The temple denied the plaintiffs' title, asserting that the suit site in Survey No. 9/8 belonged to the temple, as per revenue records. The temple contended that it was not a party to the earlier suits or sale deeds, and that the compromise decree itself acknowledged the temple's right. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title, as the compromise decree (Ex.A2) contained a recital that the property was subject to the right of the temple. The revenue records also stood in the temple's name. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact as no substantial question of law arose - The plaintiffs failed to prove title and the compromise decree itself acknowledged the temple's right - Held that concurrent findings cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 8-11). B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs, as claimants, bore the burden to prove their title - They failed to establish that the suit property was not part of the temple's land - The revenue records stood in the name of the temple - Held that the plaintiffs did not discharge the burden (Paras 8-11). C) Religious Endowments - Adverse Possession - Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - The court noted that adverse possession cannot be claimed against a religious institution in view of Section 109 - However, the decision was primarily based on failure of proof of title (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs have established their title over the suit property and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court in A.S.No.31 of 2024 dated 27.10.2025 confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1669 of 2016 dated 18.12.2023 are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on plaintiff to establish title
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal unless perverse
- Section 109 of HR & CE Act bars adverse possession against religious institutions
