Madras High Court
Ramalingam vs A/M Siddhi Vinayagar Koil on 14 July, 2026
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
1. Ramalingam
S/o Velu
2. Srinivasan
S/o Ramalingam
3. Pushpa
D/o Kaliaperumal
4. Chitra
W/o Soundarayar, All Are residing At
Kanjamanathanpettai, Kurinjipadi Tk,
Cuddalore Dt.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. A/m Siddhi Vinayagar Koil
Kanjamanathanpettai,
Rajamanickam S/o Palaniyandi,
Kanjamanathanpettai,Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District. Cause Title Amended Vide
Court Order Dated 03/01/2025 Made In Cmp
Nos 27267 Of 2024 In Sa No 355 Of
2014(rnmj)
2. A/m Siddhi Vinayagar Koil
Kanjamanathanpettai.
rep. By present Trustee, Rajamanickam S/o
Palaniyandi, Kanjamanathanpettai, Kurinjipadi
Taluk, Cuddalore District. Cause Title
Amended Vide Court Order Dated 03/01/2025
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
Made In Cmp Nos 27267 Of 2024 In
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2013 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2013
on the file of the I Addl.Sub Court, Cuddalore, in reversing the judgment and
decree dated 01.02.2013 passed in O.S.no.391 of 2010 on the file of the
Prl.District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant(s): M/s.P.Mani
V.Murali
For Respondent(s): M/s. R.Gururaj
D.Baskar
Manjula Baskar For Sole Respondent
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2013,
passed in A.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court,
Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2013, passed in
O.S.No.391 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Cuddalore.
2. The defendants in O.S.No.391 of 2010 are the appellants in this Second
Appeal. The plaintiff temple filed the suit to recover possession of the B, C, D,
Page 2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
and E schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appellate
Court reversed the decree and directed delivery of possession. Accordingly, the
defendants have filed this Second Appeal.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial
court.
4. Brief Facts: The plaintiff is A/M Siddhi Vinayagar Koil,
Kanjamanathanpettai. According to the plaintiff, the temple is a public temple
but is not under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department. It is stated that the villagers manage the temple through elected
trustees. The original plaintiffs claimed to be both trustees and worshippers of
the temple.
5. The plaintiff’s case is that the A schedule property, measuring 46½ feet
east-west and 93 feet north-south, was purchased for the temple under a
registered sale deed dated 04.05.1918. According to the plaintiff, the property
was vacant at the time. It is further stated that, by a registered rent deed dated
Page 3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
21.03.1940, one Chokkalinga Mudaliar became a tenant in respect of a portion
measuring 40 feet east-west and 45 feet north-south. He is said to have erected a
superstructure, resided there, and later to have occupied the entire A schedule
property. The plaintiff alleges that the present defendants are successors in
interest of the said tenant, either as legal heirs or as persons claiming under an
unauthorised transfer of tenancy. The plaintiff states that the trustees came to
know that the “A” schedule property belongs to the temple. The defendants have
not attorned to the temple. The defendants are estopped from denying the
plaintiff’s title.
6. The plaintiff has confined its claim to the suit site and has specifically
stated that it is not interested in the buildings or superstructures erected thereon
by the defendants. The plaintiff has further pleaded that, in the event the Court
finds that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established, it
seeks, in the alternative, recovery of possession based on its title. Accordingly,
the suit has been instituted for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant
possession of the suit B, C, D and E Schedule properties, which are in their
respective possession, to the plaintiff, and for future damages.
Page 4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
7. The defendants denied the claim. Their main defence was that there was
no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff temple and the defendants.
They denied that the sale deed dated 04.05.1918 related to the suit property.
They also pleaded that the rent deed dated 21.03.1940 was not in favour of
Siddhi Vinayagar Koil, but in favour of Vela Vinayagar Temple, which,
according to them, was a different temple.
8. The defendants further pleaded that the suit properties were originally
Government natham poramboke lands. The defendants have also prescribed title
by adverse possession. According to them, the Government assigned the
properties to them or their predecessors and issued pattas. They pleaded that
they had constructed houses, paid taxes, obtained electricity connections, and
were in possession as absolute owners, not as tenants. The plaintiff is not
entitled to seek eviction based on title. Alternatively, since the plaintiff has not
sought a declaration of title, has not valued the suit for a declaration of title, and
has not sought recovery of possession under Sec. 25 or 30 of the TNCF Act, the
plaintiff is not entitled to seek recovery of possession from the defendants either
based on a tenancy relationship or based on title. Hence, the defendants pray
that the suit be dismissed with costs.
Page 5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
9. The trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Is there a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff temple and
the defendants?
2. Whether the suit is properly valued?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of delivery of possession of
the suit properties?
4. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?
10. On the plaintiff’s side, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A4
were marked. Ex.A1 is the sale deed dated 09.08.1906 in favour of
Sivabackiammal. Ex.A2 is the sale deed dated 04.05.1918 in favour of
Duraisamy and another. Ex.A3 is the registered rent deed dated 21.03.1940.
Ex.A4 is the resolution dated 08.02.2005.
11. On the defendants’ side, D.W.1 to D.W.6 were examined, and Exs.B1 to
Ex.B78 were marked. Ex.B6, Ex.B17, Ex.B35 and Ex.B44 relate to
pattas/assignment records. Ex.B8, Ex.B9, Ex.B19, Ex.B20, Ex.B38, Ex.B39,
Page 6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
Ex.B45 and Ex.B46 are chitta/adangal records. Ex.B10, Ex.B18, Ex.B37,
Ex.B41 and Ex.B47 are survey notices. Several house tax and electricity
receipts were also marked, including Ex.B11, Ex.B13, Ex.B15, Ex.B12 (a water
tax receipt), Ex.B14 (the death certificate of one Velu), Ex.B21 to Ex.B34,
Ex.B40, Ex.B48 to Ex.B61, and Ex.B63 to Ex.B78. Ex.B62 is the registered
sale deed dated 28.07.2010 in favour of the fourth defendant.
12. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the landlord-
tenant relationship. It noted that P.W.1, the plaintiff’s own witness, admitted in
cross-examination that Ex.A3 was executed by the trustees of Vela Vinayagar
Temple, not by the plaintiff temple; that the plaintiff produced no rent receipt,
rent demand, rent account, or notice of attornment; and that P.W.3 and P.W.5,
also examined for the plaintiff, admitted that the defendants had been in
possession for ten to fifteen years and had obtained patta. On this material, it
held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. It
noted that the plaint itself pleaded, in the alternative, that the plaintiff would
seek eviction on title if tenancy failed, but held that, since no specific prayer to
that effect was made in the prayer column, the suit remained correctly valued
and fee-paid as a tenancy suit under Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act. On the issue of entitlement to relief, it held that, once
Page 7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
tenancy was not proved and no valid alternative prayer on title existed, the
plaintiff was not entitled to recovery of possession. On this reasoning, the suit
was dismissed with costs.
13. Aggrieved by the trial court judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal.
The first appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The judgment
substantially reproduces the grounds of appeal and a series of decisions cited by
the plaintiff’s counsel, including the propositions that patta does not confer title,
that a person cannot plead title and adverse possession together, and that the
court can mould relief based on pleadings and evidence. It therefore directed the
defendants to deliver possession of the B, C, D, and E-schedule properties
within three months.
14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the
present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant. This Second Appeal was
admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1.Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in decreeing the suit for
recovery of possession without the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the plaintiff and defendants being established, particularly when
Page 8 of 19https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014the plaintiff laid the suit for eviction as if the defendants are the tenants
with respect to the suit properties?
2.Whether in law the defendants are entitled to remain in possession of the
suit properties when the same are Government Natham poramboke land
and the defendants are in possession of the same pursuant to assignment
orders issued by the Government and when the patta, chitta and adangal
stand in the name of the defendants and their predecessors for more than
the statutory period?
3.Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are
sustainable in law when it has failed to frame necessary points for
determination and render definite findings on such points and when it has
simply allowed the appeal after extracting the grounds of appeal and the
evidence of P.Ws. and D.Ws.?
15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants submitted that
the judgment of the first appellate Court is legally unsustainable for non-
compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. The
first appellate Court failed to formulate or specify the necessary points for
determination arising in the appeal. Although it allowed the appeal and reversed
Page 9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
the judgment of the trial Court, it did not assign any proper or independent
reasons for doing so. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on G.
Saraswathi and another v. Rathinammal and others, Civil Appeal No.2112
of 2018; K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan, Civil Appeal Nos.6014–6015 of
2021; and Somakka (Dead) by LRs. v. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) by LRs., Civil
Appeal No.1117 of 2009.
16. It was further submitted that the first appellate Court ought to have
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court’s judgment and decree, since
the plaintiff had failed to establish any landlord-and-tenant relationship between
the plaintiff temple and the defendants.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit properties were originally
Government Natham poramboke lands vested in the Government. Considering
the long possession and enjoyment by the defendants and their predecessors, the
Government assigned the respective portions of the suit properties to them by
issuing “D” pattas and assignment orders. Consequently, the defendants and
their predecessors acquired lawful rights over the properties under the
Government assignments. The first appellate Court ought to have taken note of
Page 10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
these assignment proceedings and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
18. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the
suit properties, or the survey number in which they were situated, formed part of
the property allegedly purchased by the plaintiff temple under Ex.A2 sale deed
dated 04.05.1918. It was submitted that the defendants had expressly disputed
the plaintiff’s title to the suit properties and had asserted absolute and
independent rights over them under the Government assignments and “D”
pattas. A bare suit for recovery of possession, without seeking the relief of
declaration of title and without paying the necessary court fee for such
declaratory relief, was not maintainable. In support of this submission, reliance
was placed upon Arulmigu Selva Vinayagar Koil, Manjakuppam and
Arulmigu Dharmarajar Koil, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore, represented by
its Executive Officer v. Mani alias Kalaimani and another, S.A.No.1001 of
2014, decided on 23.05.2019, and Padmavathi and others v. The Idol of Sri
Renganathaswami, Srirangam, represented by its Joint
Commissioner/Executive Officer and others, A.S.(MD) No.143 of 2014,
decided on 02.08.2024. On the above grounds, the appellants prayed that the
Second Appeal be allowed.
Page 11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
19. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff temple submitted that the
temple purchased the suit property under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 04.05.1918 and
subsequently leased it to Chokalingam Mudaliar under Ex.A3 lease deed dated
21.03.1940, thereby establishing the landlord-tenant relationship. The
defendants, being the descendants or successors-in-interest of the original
lessee, either as legal heirs or purchasers of the tenancy rights, were bound to
attorn to the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff and to continue paying rent.
Having derived possession through the original tenant, the defendants are
estopped from denying the plaintiff’s title.
20. It was further submitted that the suit property is not Natham poramboke
land and that the pattas relied upon by the defendants were illegally obtained. A
patta is merely a revenue record and, by itself, does not confer title. The
defendants had not produced any acceptable document to prove that the suit
property was classified as Natham poramboke.
21. Learned counsel further contended that, upon proper appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence, the first appellate court rightly decreed the suit
and directed the defendants to deliver possession of the respective suit
Page 12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
properties. On the burden of proof, reliance was placed on Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31. Regarding the
grant of alternative relief, reliance was placed on Srinivas Ram Kumar v.
Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177. On the right to institute and maintain the
suit, reliance was placed on Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu
Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436, and Ramchand v. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj,
AIR 1970 SC 532. Regarding title, reliance was placed on Bhavnagar
Municipality v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 717.
22. On the plea of adverse possession and burden of proving, reliance was
placed on Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73; Annasaheb
Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil, AIR 1995 SC
895; Ponnaiyan v. Munian (died) and others, 1995 (1) LW 680; Dr. Mahesh
Chand Sharma v. Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 869; D.N.
Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 2930; State of Tamil Nadu
v. K. Purushothaman, 1998 (2) LW 171; Indira v. Arumugam, AIR 1999 SC
1549; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and others, 2011 (5) LW 725; K.
Lubna v. Beevi, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 524, particularly at page 529;
Government of Kerala v. Joseph and others, 2023 (3) LW 731; and Lincai
Gamango v. Dayanidhi Jena, (2004) 7 SCC 437.
Page 13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
23. On the evidentiary value of patta, reliance was placed on Varadarasu
alias Devarasu v. Malone Veerasamy alias Thanapal and others, 2003 (2) LW
152. Regarding the power of the Court to mould and grant appropriate relief,
reliance was placed on Smt. Gitarani Paul v. Dibyendra Kundu alias Dibyendra
Kumar Kundu, AIR 1991 SC 395. On these grounds, learned counsel sought
dismissal of the Second Appeal.
Substantial Question of Law No 1 to 3
24. The present suit is not one based on title. It has been filed solely for
eviction on the ground that the defendants are descendants of the original tenant
or have derived tenancy rights through the original tenant or his successors. The
defendants have denied any landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff
temple and have set up an independent claim to title based on Government
assignment proceedings. In such circumstances, the burden squarely lies on the
plaintiff to establish the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff
temple and the defendants.
25. To establish the relationship, the plaintiff principally relies on Ex. A3, the
lease deed. The defendants contend that the executant of Ex. A3 is not the
Page 14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
plaintiff temple but Vela Vinayagar Temple. P.W.1, the plaintiff’s own witness,
has admitted in cross-examination that Vela Vinayagar Temple executed A3. It
is also admitted that Vela Vinayagar Temple is situated in the vicinity of the
plaintiff temple and is under the administrative control of the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Department. Apart from Ex. A3, the plaintiff has
not produced any document establishing a landlord-tenant relationship between
the plaintiff temple and the defendants. No rent receipt, rent demand notice, rent
account, notice of attornment, or any other document evidencing payment of
rent by the defendants or their predecessors to the plaintiff temple has been
produced.
26. Once the plaintiff fails to establish the foundational fact of the landlord-
tenant relationship, the suit necessarily fails. In such circumstances, the Court
need not enquire into the source of the defendants’ possession or the validity of
the title they claim. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove its case, not on the
defendants to establish the correctness of their defence.
27. The contention that the defendants have taken inconsistent pleas of title
and adverse possession is of no consequence in the present case. It is well
Page 15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
settled that a defendant is entitled to raise alternative or even inconsistent
defences. Such inconsistency cannot relieve the plaintiff of the burden of
proving the case pleaded in the plaint. A decree cannot be granted merely
because the defendants have taken inconsistent pleas. The plaintiff must succeed
on the strength of its own evidence and, not on the weakness of the defence.
28. The first appellate Court has not assigned any independent reasons for
holding that the trial Court erred in finding that the landlord-tenant relationship
was not proved. Although several precedents are cited in the judgment, there is
no discussion of their applicability to the facts of the present case. The judgment
proceeds straight to decree the suit without analysing the evidence on the crucial
issue of tenancy. Such an approach is contrary to the mandate of Order XLI
Rule 31 CPC.
29. It is true that a Court has power to mould the relief in appropriate cases.
However, that power cannot be exercised to grant substantially different relief
founded on a different cause of action. The suit before the trial Court was
instituted as one for eviction based on a landlord-tenant relationship and was
valued accordingly under Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits
Page 16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
Valuation Act. Upon failure to establish tenancy, the first appellate Court could
not convert the suit into one for recovery of possession based on title by
invoking the doctrine of moulding relief. Such a course would defeat the
provisions relating to pleadings, valuation, court fee and the burden of proof.
30. Order XLI Rule 33 CPC confers wide powers on the appellate Court to
pass such decree or order as the justice of the case requires. Nevertheless, the
exercise of that power does not dispense with the mandatory requirement under
Order XLI Rule 31 CPC to formulate proper points for determination, record
findings on each point and assign reasons therefor. Rule 33 supplements Rule
31; it does not override it.
31. The first appellate Court committed a manifest error in reversing the
well-considered findings of the trial Court without recording cogent reasons for
disagreeing with them. It further erred in decreeing the suit for recovery of
possession despite the plaintiff’s failure to establish the landlord-tenant
relationship on which the suit was founded. The judgment of the first appellate
Court is therefore unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the first three substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants.
Page 17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
32. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree
dated 02.12.2013, passed in A.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional
Sub Court, Cuddalore, are set aside. The judgment and decree dated 01.02.2013,
passed in O.S.No.391 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Cuddalore, dismissing the suit, are restored. In the circumstances of the case, no
order as to costs is made. Connected Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed
except C.M.P.No.21759 of 2023 is dismissed as not maintainable vide separate
orders. No costs.
14.07.2026
ay
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
To
1. The I Addl.Sub Court, Cuddalore.
2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.is
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Records,
Madras High Court.
Page 18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT
S.A. No. 355 of 2014
14.07.2026
Page 19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
