G. Jayachandran, J.:— The plaintiff is the appellant herein. Suit in O.S No. 424 of 1994 filed for permanent injunction was dismissed by both the Courts below. Aggreived by the concurrent findings, the plaintiff has preferred the Second Appeal.
2. The gist of the plaint is as follows:—
The plaintiff temple represented by its Executive Officer has filed a suit in O.S No. 424 of 1994 against the Nagapatinam Municipality alleging that, the suit property situtated in S. Nos. 1428, 1429, 1431 and 1432 of Vellipalyam Village, is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff temple. The defendant Municipality earlier got 99 years lease from the temple and the same was terminated on 10.03.1967 The defendant Municipality had requested for extension of lease on 17.02.1971 The said request was not considered favourable by the plaintiff temple. Thereafter, the plaintiff temple has taken possession of the property and has attorned the tenancy in respect of the tenants and collecting rent from them. While so, the defendant-Municipality is trying to demolish the superstructure and disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the property. Hence, the suit.
3. The gist of the written statment is as follows:
The plaintiff Temple is not the owner of the suit properties. Whereas the entire extend of S. No. 1430 and about 35,109 Sq.ft of porambokku land in S. No. 1431 is owned by the defendant-Municipality. The other suit properties are porambokku land and all the porambokku lands within the Muncipal limit are owned by the Muncipality. The averment that the suit properties were leased to the Municipality for 99 years lease, is denied. Even assuming that the suit properties were taken on lease from the plaintiff Temple, the said lease was not terminated as per law. The defendant Municipality is in possession of the suit property and continue to auction the shops in the suit land. The Muncipality had only removed the encroachments and unauthorised occupants in order to ensure free flow of traffic. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed with costs.
4. The trial Court has framed the following issues:
“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
2) What relief the plaintiff is entitled for?”
5. Further, the trial Court has framed the following Additional Issues:
“1) Whether the plaintiff temple own and enjoy the suit properties?
2) Whether the defendant are in enjoyment of the suit properties?”
6. With these issues the trial Court examined 4 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, 3 witnesses on behalf of the defendant. Admitted 4 exhibits for plaintiff and 9 exhibits for the defendant. After appreciating the evidence, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the ownership (or) 99 years lease to the Municipality, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
7. On appeal, the first appellate Court disbelieved Ex.A1-the letter purported to have been written by the Muncipality to the temple Authority for extension of lease, and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
8. Thus, the second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Considering the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, the following Substantial Question of Law has been framed:—
“1) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit by ignoring the documents of Ex.A1, A2 and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 which would clearly establish the 99 years lease created by the temple in favour of the defendants?
2) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit without giving a finding that the defendants are estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff in the light of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 as per the provisions of Section 115 of Evidence Act?”
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate the facts and law properly, which has lead to miscarriage of justice. The ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties was admitted by the respondent and after expiry of the 99 years lease period, they wrote a letter to the Temple Devesthanam for extension of lease. This letter marked as Ex.A-1 has been rejected by the Courts below on an erroneous ground that the genuiness of Ex.A-1 is not proved. The trial Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove its ownership and not entitled for the relief of injunction.
10. The Exs.A-1 to A-4 relied by the plaintiff Temple are the letter from the Muncipality Commissioner seeking extension of lease; representation of the tenants; rental receipts issued by the Temple; and Draft Demand Notice for the Fasli 1395 to 1398 respectively. In the absence of title deed (or) 99 years lease deed to show the plaintiff as owner and the defendant was only permissive occupant of the suit property as leasee, the Courts below have concurrently held that there is no proof for ownership (or) for possession in favour of the plaintiff. Since the tax demand notices are of recent periods, they were not taken into consideration by the Courts below.
11. On considering the evidence and law governing the facts pleaded, this Court finds from the exhibits relied by the rival parties, the revenue records that the Municipality is in possession of S. No. 1430 and part of S. No. 1431 (nearly 35,000sq.ft) only. Rest of the suit properties are classified as porumbokku and in possession of Sri. Varadaraja Perumal Devasthanam (plaintiff temple). It is also found from Ex.B5-Sketch only that a small portion in S. No. 1431 is with the Municipality. Further, a portion of the temple land been assigned to the Cholan Transport Corporation by the temple. The tax demand notice issued to the temple in respect of suit properties is marked as Ex A-4.
12. Though the plaintiff temple have not produced title deed, neither the defendant have title over the property. In the revenue records [Exs.B-7 and B-8], except S. No. 1430 and 1431 (part), the other suit properties are not shown to be owned or possessed by the Municipality. While Ex.B-7 is unrelated to the suit property, Ex.B-8 is in respect of S. No. 1427 to S. No. 1432. In Ex.B-8, this Court finds that S. No. 1428 and 1432 are in the name of the the plaintiff Temple. It is also seen that against S. No. 1428 the name of the plaintiff temple is scored off and Cholan Transport Corporation's name is written. Ex.B-9-‘A’ Register extract clearly shows that for S. Nos. 1428, 1429 and 1432, the plaintiff temple is the patta holder.
13. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate Court that the plaintiff could produce tax demand notices (Ex.A4) for the fasli 1395 onwards only, so it has to be presumed that for the years prior to fasli 1395 the plaintiff was not in possession of those property, is wrong. Further, the Courts below have taken note of the tax demand notice relied by the defendants to reject the claim of the plaintiff, even though it pertains to S. Nos. 1430 and 1431 alone.
14. From the evidence and Commissioner Report, it could be seen that in one of the suit properties, S. No. 1431 a water body (tank) is located and the same is maintained by the Municipality. There are tenants or encroachers around the tank. The third parties, who are tenants under the temple are paying rent to the temple. It is pertinent to note that, one tenant by name Ramalingam has even approached the Court for seeking injunction against the Muncipality alleging forcible eviction. This fact has been set out in the plaint itself. The said suit in O.S.117/1986 filed by the said Ramalingam came upto the High Court by filing the second appeal in S.A No. 385 of 1994 and in the said appeal, this Court has rejected the plea of the Nagapattinam Municipality that the total extend of S. No. 1431 belongs to the Municipality.
15. No doubt, the rental receipts Ex.A-3 do not bear survey number, however, there is no contra evidence to show that the temple is having properties elsewhere and the rental receipts are not pertaining to the suit property. Similarly, Ex.A-1 is the letter of the Municipal Commissioner to the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff temple seeking lease of the land bearing S. No. 1428, 1429, 1431 and 1432 for 99 years. It is signed by the Manager and issued by order of the Commissiner Mr. C. Seetharaman. The ingorance of this letter expressed by the witnesses will not perse to make it unreliable. This letter bears the correspondence number, signed and issued by order of the Municipal Commissioner. Prima facie, it is presumed to be a genuine document issued by a Public Authority in the regular course of transaction. The burden of disproving this document is on the Municipality, which denies it. When no attempt made by the Municipality to show that the letter was not emanated from their office (or) no person by name Mr. C. Seetharaman was Commissioner of the Nagapattinam Municipality at that relavent point of time (or) the signature of the Manager is forged etc., the first appellate Court has erronously disbelieved this evidence.
16. When the very same letter Ex A-1 was subjected to judicial scrutiny in the earlier appeal mentioned above, (S.A No. 385/1994), this Court has held in para 13, which reads as below:
“13. Though the defendant/Municipality contends that the land in T.S No. 1431 is a poromboke land, it has not adduced any proof to substantiate the same and the only document marked by it is Ex.B1, which is the true extract of Nagapattinam Municipality Town Survey Rgister dated 12.4.1989 D.W.1 is the Town Surveyor of the defendant/Municipality and according to him, the total extent of land in T.S No. 1431 is poromboke land maintained by the defendant/Municipality. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he has not filed any other document other than Ex.B1 to show that the land in possession is a poromoboke land and though they maintained Municipality and Government Land Register, he has not filed the same. Ex.B1 does not advance the case of the defendant in any way. On the contrary, the defendant/Municipality itself has sought for renewal of lease for another period of 99 yeras as evidenced from Ex.A8”
17. Thus, it is evident that the Municipality taken the land for long lease from the plaintiff temple earlier. On expiry of the lease period, it had sought further lease for 99 years through letter Ex A-1. Having admitted ownership, the Municipality is estopped from denying the title of the temple subsequently. The rejection of Ex A-1 by both the Courts below is not in consonance with law and the finding of this Court regarding the same document, which was marked as Ex B-8 in the earlier proceedings O.S 117/1986, ended in S.A 385/1994.
18. The Courts below have failed to appreciated the evidences, in the light of the respective pleadings. Hence, the judgments of the Courts below being perverse and they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside.
19. In the result, The Second Appeal is allowed and the suit in O.S No. 424 of 1994 is decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs.