K. MOOSA HAJJ'S WIDOW SMT. KANNDIYIL AYISSU AND ORS.versusEXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE

K. MOOSA HAJJ'S WIDOW SMT. KANNDIYIL A YISSU AND ORS.                     A
                                     v.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE

                               MAY 1, 1996

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]                        B

        Temple land; :

       Unauthorised possession over temple lands-Suit for ejectment-Con-
struction of residential premises on temple lands under 011 agreement with C
Devaswam-Appellants extending their possession with the alleged pemiission
of Executive officer of the Temple-High Court holding that appellants' claim
cannot a1end beyond what was granted under 01iginal agreement---Pennis-
sion granted by Executive Officer does not confer any title-Directions given
to civil court to appoint a Commissioner to identify the land covered under
original agreement and demarcate the same and rest of the land should be D
taken possession of-Held, decree of High Court does not warrant inteiference
except for exclusion from it of lands covered by the purchase ce1tificate.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8402 of
1995.
                                                                          E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.95 of the Kerala High
Court in S.A. No. 995 of 1989.

        K. Sukumaran and K.M.K. Nair for the Appellants.
                                                                          F
     T.L.V. Iyer, Y.P. Dhingra, Baldev Satija and S.S. Khanduja for the
Respondents.

        The following Order Of the Court was delivered :

       This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Kerala G
High Court dated March 20, 1995 made in S.A. No. 995/89. The admitted
position is that the appellants' predecessor one Mr. Vellu had entered into
an agreement \Vith the respondent Devaswam for construction of residen-
tial premises on an extent of 3-1/2 cents of land under Ex. A-1 dated
November 25, 1921. The extent is of 5 x 7 six ft. Koles with a boundary H
                                     243
    244                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A specified thereunder. The building constructed on this land has Municipal
    No. 177. Th·reafter it would appear that the appellant had extended their
    possession to 10-3/10 cents and 13-1/5 cents at different times. The respon-
    dent has filed the suit for eviction of <he appellants and possession thereof.
    The trial Court and the appellate Court have dismissed the suit and the
B   appeal. But in the second appeal, the High Court declared that the
    permission granted by the Executive officer, Ex.B-8 does not confer any
    title. The appellants claim cannot extend beyond what has been granted to
    her predecessor in interest, Ex. A-1. Accordingly, it directed the trial Court
    to appoint a Commissioner to identify the land coyered under ExA-1,
C   demarcate the same and that rest of the land should be taken possession
    of.

          It is contended by Shri Sukumaran, counsel for the appellant that the
    High Court has committed error in directing to take possession of 10-3/10
D   cents since the appellants had purchased it under the Land Reforms Act
    and, therefore, the decree to that extent is not correct in law. When we
    asked Mr. TLV Iyer, the counsel for the respondent, he stated that they
    have specifically excluded to the above extent and would pursue the
    remedy as provided under the Land Reforms Act. In that view, it is not
E   necessary to go into the question as to the extent of 10-3/10 cents of the
    land. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to recover the balance area
    admeasuring 13-1/5 cents.


          It is then contended that the trial Court and the appellant Court after
F   due consideration of evidence found that the house was existing in the land.
    The boundary prevails over the extent and that, therefore, the appellants
    cannot be ejected from the land on which the house was erected. We find
    no force in the contention. When we pointedly asked lhe counsel to point
    out the source for the right, the appellant fell upon ex.B-8, rent receipt, as
G source of title. The appellant does not get any legal title based on it since
    Ex.B-8 is only a rent receipt which does not confer any title. There is no
    other document evidencing the title of the land on which the building came
    to be constructed in excess of 3-1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which
    covers 10-3/10 cents. The appellants cannot have any right more than what
H   was conferred under ExA-1 which specifically mentions 3-1/2 cents and
       K. MOOSA HAn·s WIDOW SMT. KANNDIYIL AYISSU '· EXECUTIVE OFFICER   245

the purchase certificate which covers 10-3/10 cents including 3-1/2 cents. A
Under those circumstances, the decree of the High Court docs not warrant
interference, except for the exclusion of total area of 10-3/10 cents of land
covered by the purchase certificate from the decree.

       The appeal is dismissed with the above modification. No costs.
                                                                               B
R.P.                                                      Appeal dismissed.