Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Nataraja Pathar (Died) vs Arulmighu Bhawa ...

Madras High Court|02 August, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below. The suit filed by the appellant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant/temple to remove the 4-wheel wooden Sapparam in S.No.4 cents of suit property and to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
2. The case of the appellant as found in the plaint is that, the suit property was leased out to the plaintiff's ancestor several 10 years ago by the defendant-temple and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of it by paying rent to the defendant-temple. While so, the defendant-temple has brought 4-wheel wooden Sapparam of the temple and parked on the western side of the suit property only to cause hindrance to the plaintiff herein and indirectly to force the plaintiff from vacating the suit property.
3. Both the Courts below have held against the plaintiff, while arriving at the conclusion, the Courts below have gone into the title of the parties and incidentally found that, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, since there was no document to show the possession of the suit property with the plaintiff.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the defendant-temple has removed the 4-wheel wooden Sapparam. So, cause of action does not longer survives. However, the findings with regard to the possession and title of the suit property as found in the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have to be eschewed, since both the Courts have gone beyond the scope of the suit.
5. On perusing the judgments of the Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that if either of the party still have any dispute regarding the title or enjoyment of the suit property, they can work out their remedy separately, without adhering to the findings in this regard recorded by the Courts below. As far as this second appeal is concerned, the cause of action narrated in the plaint is not available due to the subsequent events. Hence, the second appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
02.08.2017 ari Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
ari To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.
The District Munsif, Tirutturaipoondi S.A.No.1346 of 2000 02.08.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Nataraja Pathar (Died) vs Arulmighu Bhawa ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 August, 2017