Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The unsuccessful plaintiff/temple is the appellant herein. The present second appeal is filed against the concurrent judgment of the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court.

2.The suit in O.S.187/90 is filed by the plaintiff for declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property. The plaint proceeds as if the suit property belongs to the temple by way of devadayam Inam vide TD no.111 and the grant was confirmed till the temple was maintained from and out of the income from the same and the property was registered in Inam Fair Register as belonging to the temple and the same had been maintained so, by the predecessor and thereafter by the first defendant who was the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple and the income of the property had been treated as temple property and utilised for the maintenance of the temple and the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in her capacity as hereditary trustee of the same, on behalf of the temple and after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter shortly referred to as Act), steps were taken to obtain ryotwari patta in respect of the suit property belonging of the temple and the ryotwari patta was duly issued to the temple by the Settlement Tahsildar and patta issued by the Settlement Tahsildar was set aside by the Minor Inam Tribunal, Coimbatore in CMA.334/69 wherein, the first defendant claimed independent right over the suit property and on the failure of the temple to produce relevant documents, before the appellate authority, the order of the settlement Tahsildar was set aside and ryotwari patta was issued in the name of the first defendant and thereafter no step was taken to file further appeal against the order of the settlement Tahsildar. While so, the first defendant was removed from the hereditary trusteeship by the HR&CE Department and the same was challenged by a suit, which is now culminated and pending as appeal before the Supreme Court. In the mean while, an Executive officer was appointed as in-charge of the temple, who preferred an appeal with inordinate delay before the High Court, Chennai against the order made in CMA.334/69 and the High Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the first defendant had been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property belonging to the temple and by utilising the income from the same for his personal use without any right to do so and also sold a portion of the same to the defendants 2 to 10 during 1990 which compelled the plaintiff to come forward with the suit for the relief stated supra.

9.As already stated, the plaintiff temple claimed the suit relief for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of devadayam inam granted in favour of the temple by Zamindar of Ramnad vide T.D.No.111. The facts that the predecessor-in-title of the first defendant and the first defendant were the service holders-cum-hereditary trustees of the plaintiff temple and had been managing the affairs of the temple and had been in possession and enjoyment of the property belonging to the temple and the property granted by way of Inam and also the suit property, are not denied. While the plaintiff claims that the suit property belongs to the temple by way of Devadayam Inam granted by Zamindar of Ramnad vide T.D No.111 and as evident from Ex.A2 Inam fair register extract, Exs.A3 to A7 auditor's reports and Ex.A24 order of the Settlement Tahsildar in SR.No.410 and 462/1968 made under the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30/1963, the deceased first defendant denied the plaintiff's title and set up title in favour of her predecessors and thereafter in her favour by virtue of Ex.B1 order made in CMA.334/69 by the Inam Tribunal, Coimbatore for issuance of ryotwari patta in favour of the first defendant, Ex.B3 patta issued by the Special Tahsildar, Exs.B7 and B8 Inam register extracts, Ex.B11 lease deed Ex.B16 order of the Collector of Chennai to issue jarimania patta to her predecessors, Ex.17 jarimania patta and Ex.B18 patta for the fasli 1348.

22.The document produced as Ex.A39 is the judgment made in OS.No.12 of 1939 on the file of District Court, Coimbatore. The list of exhibits produced in OS.No.12 of 1939 is appended at inner page 13 of Ex.A39 judgment. The perusal of the list of documents reveal that the document produced as Ex.P4(a) is the title deed No.111 which is admittedly the title deed referred to in the present suit in Ex.A2 Inam Fair Register. When present suit Ex.A2 Inam Fair Register refers to the same as the document under which the suit lands are granted to the suit temple under Devadayam inam, the said document is in the list of Exhibits in Ex.A39 judgment described as title deed No.111 granted to the Manager for the time being of Subrahmanyaswami temple. The Manager of the temple mentioned in para 28(3) of the same Ex.39 judgment in OS.No.12 of 1939 is one Nagappa Gurukkal who was the predecessor in title of the first defendant herein. The trial court in para 13 at inner page 5 of its judgment in OS.No.12 of 1939 discussed about Ex.P4 and P4(a) documents and referred to Ex.P4 as the title deed in English issued regarding the land of Unjavelampatti relating to the temple in favour of the Manager for the time being of Subramanyaswami Pagoda and that the inam was confirmed in favour of the Manager and his successors tax free. It is further referred to Ex.P4(a) as a similar title deed relating to the lands of Sangampalam with a similar entry in Tamil. The present suit Ex.B16 Jarimaniya Pattayam dated 1803 issued by the Collector of Coimbatore in favour of one Kuppayyar, ancestor of Nagappa Kurukkal who was noted as poojari, was also produced as Ex.P1 in the same suit and the present suit Ex.A2 Inam Fair Register was also produced therein as Ex.P3(a). The finding rendered in para 14 of the judgment in OS.No.12 of 1939 is that the title deeds for all the lands were in respect of Nagappa Gurukkal's ancestor and the plaintiff Subbulakshmiammal was in possession of Sangampalayam lands. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Subbulakshmiammal, holding that Subbulakshmiammal and her ancestors have owned title deeds for the inam lands and have been in possession of a major portion of them and have been enjoying the same unchallenged by the first defendant therein and his ancestors and Nagappa Gurukkal actually asserted his right before the HRE Temple Committee of Coimbatore and forced it in 1929 to recognise his name to sole management of the temple. Accordingly, the decree was issued in favour of the plaintiff Subbulakshmi in OS.No.12 of 1939 and against the first defendant.