The right of the appellant to hold and possess the said land was numbericed by a Bench of the Madras High Court in 2001 2 Law Weekly 723 in the following terms Such a land does number cease to be a poramboke property over which the Government will have companytrol subject only to the rights of the temple.
For the purpose of effectuating the aforementioned purpose, the Government of Madras issued GO No.3333 on or about 25.8.1960 permitting the temple to lease out the said lands for the purpose of augmenting its revenues subject of companyrse to the companyditions laid down therein, which are The temple authorities before applying for assignment of the porambokes found in excess of the requirements of the temple and worship should obtain the companysent of the H.R. C.E. ADMN DEPARTMENT.
Respondent was evicted from the said shop.
Both the appeals were taken up for hearing together.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed.
In the said suit, the possessory title of the temple was affirmed but it was dismissed on the ground that respondent had already taken possession and, therefore, the remedy of the appellant would only be to file a suit for recovery thereof.
At the same time, pursuant to the observations made by the District Court in its judgment dated 20.11.1985, a suit was instituted.
However, he is said to have encroached upon 300 sq.
A decree was passed.
The suit was decreed.
of land in the said survey later on.
The defence taken by the respondent was that the land occupied by him pertains to Survey No.144 and number to Survey No.370/1.
By reason of the impugned judgment whereas the Second Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, that of the respondent was allowed holding that appellant had failed to prove any title over the said land by way of patta or otherwise as also the fact that possession had been delivered in its favour by the State.
Respondent filed a second appeal which was marked as Second Appeal No.800 of 1994 which was tagged with the second appeal preferred by the appellant being Second Appeal No.752 of 1997.
A suit was instituted for his eviction.
By reason of such classification, the appellant temple obtained full right to possession and exercise right to transfer of the lands assigned in its favour.
An appeal suit was preferred.
Respondent herein was a licensee in respect of a shop situated in Suvey No.370/1.
A suit for an eviction was initiated.
Appellant is a temple.
B. Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 26.3.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal Nos.752/87 and 800/94 whereby and whereunder the appeals preferred by the respondent herein from a judgment and order dated 13.04.1994, passed by the First Appellate Court in AS 16 of 1983, were allowed.
