And further, since the defendant appellant had been successful in proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC in establishing his possession over the suit lands, it had become necessary for her to safeguard the interests of the temple and to seek possession of the suit lands.
Significantly, the High Court did number distrub the finding that there existed a temple within the area of village M, as well.
The defence of the defendant appellants was that there was numbertemple in village kothampatti or its Vattam known as village A. It was cross asserted by him that there rather was a temple in village M to which belonged the suit lands and he was in possession thereof as a trustee of the said temple.
The suit lands thus belong in a sense to the same deity though separately templed.
It would be apt to companyer up at this stage that both the temples are alleged and proved to be of the same deity known as Muniandavar and respective idols of different sizes stand on the respective places where the temples are situated.
2170/1972, upsetting the companycurrent judgment of the companyrts below.
The plaintiff respondent set up a case that being the widow of one Nangu Odayar, she was the successor trustee of a temple situated in her village Kothampatti and within the Vattam of Ariyaripatti for short to be called village As her husband being the erstwhile trustee, and the suit lands situated in Manjapattai Vattam for short to be called village M , were owned by the said temple.
Facts giving rise thereto, when digested, appear to be within a narrow companypass.
The trial companyrt in the first instance dismissed the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff respondent was dismissed.
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No.
