Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. It is so unfortunate that the 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff in OS. No. 166/1979 remained exparte. But, however, this court feels that it is its duty to dispose of the appeal on merits, by taking into consideration that the suit property is a Nandavanam, intended for rearing flowers and offering the same to the Kattalai of the Temple.

12. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the Settlement Register, titled as 'Tirunelveli Taluk Register of Ready Money Inam'. But, I do not find the word 'Ready Money Inam" in any of the columns from 1 to 19. Column 1 contains the survey number. Columns 2 and 3 indicate the name of the Village and Column 4, the kist payable and Column 5, "Class to which the Inam belongs", in which it is stated, "Devadayam Nanthavanam". Column 6 'Description of Inam' says, "For the upkeep of a flower garden belonging to Ganthimathi Amman Temple at Tirunelveli, which is in the village of Sindupunthorai." Column 11 to 16 are unnecessary. Column 17 deals with the result of enquiry, which states, "This is an Inam granted for the upkeep of a flower garden at Sindupunthorai, which belongs to Kanthimathi Amman of Tirunelveli for supplying the flowers thereof every day for the use of the Amman at mid night. This Inam first appears in the Mania Jamabandy account." Column 18 indicates about the opinion of the Tahsildar, which states, "I have examined the Maniam account received from the Huzur Vernacular Record Keeper. The grant is recognised in fasly 1217. I am of opinion that the grant may be continued subject to control of the Siva Committee (signed) G.V. Chinnanatan, Tahsildar, 16th September 1875." In fact, this has already been accepted by the Inam Commissioner on 14th June 1881 (Column 19 of Ex.A1). From Ex.A1, it emerges that the suit land is intended for the upkeep of a flower garden and supply flowers to the Amman Temple, which is situated in the Village of Sindupunthorai and the classification of the suit property is described as "Devadayam Nanthavanam". The plaintiff and their predecessors in title, have claimed that they have been rearing flower plants and supplying flowers for the Kattalai of the Temple. On examining, Ex.A1, I do not find any money demand for the service done by the plaintiff. The lower appellate court had referred to all the relevant documents filed and relied upon the plaint. Ex.A3 would indicate that the plaintiff's predecessors have taken necessary action, by filing appeal/petition before the Board of Revenue, as the land was wrongly classified as assessed waste and at their instance, it was retransferred as Nandavanam and Ex.A4 is the notice issued by the Tahsildar, confirming the same. Ex.A5 is the True Extract of the proceedings of the Board of Revenue, regarding the appeal filed by the plaintiff's predecessors. Ex.A7 is the Miscellaneous patta granted in favour of the Temple. Ex.A9 is the Extract from the Survey Register, Tirunelveli Town, indicating the S. No. 132 of Sindupunthurai Village concerned, which is noted as 'Nandavanam'. In Ex.A10, the Property Tax demand Register, the name of Subramaniam Pillai is shown, who is the predecessor of the plaintiff, who has filed the suit in Os. No. 335/1973. Ex.A11 reveals that a political sufferer by name Varadarajaperumal Pillai wanted the land to be assigned in his favour and the same was negatived by the Government, stating that the land is not available for assignment, as it is required for the purpose for which it is registered. In 1959, the Municipality made an attempt to get it alienated and the same was negatived by the Government, (Ex.A12). Ex.A15 to 17 (series) are the kist receipts paid by the plaintiff and his predecessors. Ex.A18 and A19 (series) are the tax receipts. The Temple authorities issued a certificate for the services rendered by T. Subramania Pillai, by way of supply of flowers (Ex.A20). These documents would undoubtedly prove that the suit property is a Nandavanam, that is being maintained as Nandavanam and flowers were supplied by the plaintiff and his predecessors. The other documents filed by the plaintiff support the case of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is also further fortify their contention that they have taken action against the trespassers in 1973, by filing the suit in OS. No. 335/ 1973, which was decreed on 6.10.1976 and the CRP. No. 3150/1976 was dismissed by this court on 23.6.1977. These documents would abundantly prove the case of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff made arrangements to execute the decree in OS. No. 335/1973, some of the defendants in that suit along with others, whose ranks are shown by the lower appellate court in para 17 of the judgment, wanted to take away the property and also to thwart the plaintiff from executing the decree in OS. No. 335/1973 and only in the said circumstances, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit in OS. No. 166/1979.