R.V.F VENKATACHALA GOUNDER versus ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE AND ANR.

R.V.F VENKATACHALA GOUNDER versus ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE AND ANR.

Appellant established a high degree of probability as to his ownership and possession of the suit property; temple failed to discharge onus or prove title; photocopies and books of account were properly admitted as no objection was raised; attornment by tenant to temple was invalid and estoppel operated; High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings without a substantial question of law.

Parties
Appellant: R.V.F. Venkatachala Gounder; Respondent No.1: Arulmigu Viswesarawami and V.P. Temple; Respondent No.2 (tenant): M.R. Arunachala Mudaliar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 316 of 1983, Madras High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Possession, Arrears of Rent, Admissibility of Evidence, Burden of Proof, Estoppel
Civil Law Property Law Declaration of Title Possession Arrears of Rent Admissibility of Evidence Burden of Proof Estoppel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.V.F. Venkatachala Gounder

Appellant

Arulmigu Viswesarawami and V.P. Temple

Respondent No.1

M.R. Arunachala Mudaliar

Respondent No.2 (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 316 of 1983, Madras High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant or the temple had title to the suit property
  2. 2 Validity of attornment by tenant in favour of the temple
  3. 3 Admissibility of photocopies and entries in books of account as evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant established a high degree of probability as to his ownership and possession of the suit property; temple failed to discharge onus or prove title; photocopies and books of account were properly admitted as no objection was raised; attornment by tenant to temple was invalid and estoppel operated; High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings without a substantial question of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside
  • Judgment and decree of the trial court, as confirmed by the first appellate court, is restored