Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs (Suma and V. Arunkumar) against the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, which reversed the Trial Court's decree in their favor. The plaintiffs originally filed O.S.No.211 of 2009 seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 8.24 acres of land in Thirumalaigiri Village. They claimed that a portion of 1.90 acres was purchased by Nanjundaiyyar in 1895 for conducting poojas to Lord Vinayaga in Easwaran Temple, and that the property was bequeathed to his adopted son under a Will dated 1905 with a condition to use the income for poojas. The plaintiffs asserted that they are the descendants and owners of the property. The defendants, including the State and HR&CE authorities, contended that the property is a religious endowment and belongs to the temple. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they proved their title and possession. The First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the property is an endowment. In the second appeal, the High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the nature of the property and the burden of proof. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including the Sale Deed and Will, and found that there was no clear dedication to a deity or institution, and the plaintiffs had not proved that the property was an endowment. The court also noted that the revenue records showed the property as 'Government land' and the plaintiffs failed to prove possession. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the nature of the property as an endowment and the burden of proof. Held that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree without properly appreciating the evidence, and the appeal was allowed. (Paras 1-27) B) Religious Endowment - Proof of Endowment - Sections 1, 2(16) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - The plaintiffs claimed that the land was purchased for conducting poojas to an idol, but the court found that the Will and Sale Deed did not create a valid endowment as there was no dedication to a deity or institution. Held that the burden to prove endowment lies on the party asserting it, and the plaintiffs failed to discharge that burden. (Paras 3-27) C) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction, but the court noted that the revenue records showed the property as 'Government land' and the plaintiffs failed to prove possession. Held that the Trial Court correctly decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court's reversal was unsustainable. (Paras 3-27)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit properties constitute a religious endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and whether the plaintiffs have established their title and possession over the suit properties.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated September 6, 2019 in A.S.No.24 of 2018, and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated September 2, 2016 in O.S.No.211 of 2009. No costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Endowment
- Religious trust
- Suit for declaration
- Injunction
- Adverse possession
- Limitation
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
