THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.189 of 2011 April 21, 2011 Between: P.Narayanaswamy, S/o.Balakrishnama Naidu ... Appellant And S V K Srinivasa Raghavan, S/o.Late Kanappachari And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.189 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the defendant. He filed the instant second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 in A.S.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2007 in O.S.No.1093 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The respondent and two others instituted the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises, mandatory injunction and damages. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and the second plaintiff alone prosecuted the suit. In the plaint, it was alleged as follows. The suit schedule site along with zinc shed is the property of Sri Manavala Mahamuni Swamy Temple. The defendant occupied the property claiming himself to be tenant and had been paying monthly rent. As the suit schedule property belongs to the temple and it should be used only for temple purposes, a registered notice dated 10.11.2000 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued demanding the appellant to vacate the premises. He did not do so, but started sending an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month by way of demand draft from January, 2001. After terminating the tenancy, the suit was filed. The appellant opposed the suit. He contended that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the second plaintiff and that plaintiffs have nothing to do with the property, that he had been inducted into property on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-, that he paid rent regularly and that he has not committed any default and, therefore, he cannot be evicted from the suit schedule property. The trial Court framed four issues. The second plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. Exs.A4 and A5 are legal notices demanding the appellant to vacate the premises. The appellant was the lone witness, who gave evidence as D.W.1. Considering the evidence especially the admissions made by the appellant that he is a tenant of the suit schedule property, the trial Court ordered eviction and granted mandatory injunction for removal of the structures. However on the ground that the respondent failed to prove the damages, claim of Rs.5,000/- per month towards damages was denied. The appellate Court reconsidered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the quit notice was issued property and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that when the suit schedule property belongs to Sri Manavala Mahamuni Swamy Temple, the respondent has no locus to file the suit in his name and, therefore, both the Courts below erred in granting the decree. In the written statement as summed up by the trial Court, the appellant admitted that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the second plaintiff. The plea now taken before this Court that the property belongs to temple was not even whispered in the written statement. Further, a perusal of copy of the decree would show that the respondent filed the suit as Dharmakartha (trustee) of the temple and indisputably he is the hereditary trustee of the temple. Therefore the suit filed is certainly in order and the question of locus does not arise. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 21, 2011 YS