Skip to content


S. Subramania Nayanar Vs. S. Vengu Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ302
AppellantS. Subramania Nayanar
RespondentS. Vengu Iyer
Excerpt:
- - 1. it has not been clearly decided by either court which party is in possession of the temple property, or was in possession thereof when the injunction was issued, but the defendants have in their favour a magisterial order directing possession to be delivered to them, and it is not denied that this order has partially at any rate been obeyed, and that they hold the keys of the outer doors of the building......court which party is in possession of the temple property, or was in possession thereof when the injunction was issued, but the defendants have in their favour a magisterial order directing possession to be delivered to them, and it is not denied that this order has partially at any rate been obeyed, and that they hold the keys of the outer doors of the building. it is said that the plaintiff is collecting the rents from some tenants, and that others refuse to pay him, so that it is not clear that he is in possession of any part of the property now, whatever may have been the case when the suit was instituted, while it is clear that the defendants have the control of the temple building itself. there is no allegation that the property is likely to be wasted or removed by the.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. It has not been clearly decided by either Court which party is in possession of the temple property, or was in possession thereof when the injunction was issued, but the defendants have in their favour a magisterial order directing possession to be delivered to them, and it is not denied that this order has partially at any rate been obeyed, and that they hold the keys of the outer doors of the building. It is said that the plaintiff is collecting the rents from some tenants, and that others refuse to pay him, so that it is not clear that he is in possession of any part of the property now, whatever may have been the case when the suit was instituted, while it is clear that the defendants have the control of the temple building itself. There is no allegation that the property is likely to be wasted or removed by the defendants, and the case is not therefore within the provisions of Section 492 of the Civil Procedure Code. Nor is it, the defendants being in possession, a case falling within Section 493.

2. I think the injunction was, in the circumstances, issued without jurisdiction, and I set it aside. If the rents cannot be collected, the appointment of a receiver would appear the appropriate remedy.

3. The petition is allowed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //