K. KAMALA Vs. ARULMIGHU NANDEESWARASWAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is arising out of Judgment and Decree passed by First Appellate Court confirming an Order of Rejection of the Plaint. The Appellants and 3rd Respondent herein filed a Suit for Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession against the Respondents 1 & 2 in O.S. No.187 of 2012. The 2nd Respondent herein, who was arrayed as 2nd Defendant in the Suit filed an Application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the Plaint. The said Application was allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the Appellants and 3rd Respondent herein preferred an Appeal and the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the Appellants are before this Court.

(2.) According to the Appellants and 3rd Respondent/Plaintiffs, the Suit property was given to their predecessors-in-interest as a Personal Grant and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Inam lands as such. After Notification under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963, the husband of 1st Appellant and father of Appellants 2 to 5 & 3rd Respondent herein and grandfather of the Appellants 6 & 7 namely A.N. Katchabeswara Gurukkal claimed Patta for the Suit lands under Minor Inams Abolition Act proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer by Order, dtd. 10/8/2011 granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd Appellant herein preferred an Appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal/ Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu in Inam C.M.A. No.10 of 2011 and the same was pending on the date of filing of the present Plaint. It was claimed by the Appellants that de hors the Patta granted in favour of 1st Respondent, the question of Title could be agitated before the Civil Court. The 2nd Respondent taking advantage of the dispute between the Appellants and 1st Respondent had committed trespass into the Suit lands and constructed unauthorised construction in the Suit properties. Hence, the above Suit was filed seeking declaration of Plaintiffs' (Appellants and 3rd Respondent) Title to the Suit properties and for recovery of possession of Suit properties after removal of construction made by the 2nd Defendant.

(3.) The 2nd Respondent herein filed I.A. No.2008 of 2012 seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the Appellants and 3rd Respondent/Plaintiffs. In his Affidavit filed in support of the said Application, it was contended by the 2nd Respondent that no document had been produced by the Appellants to substantiate their claim of personal grant in favour of their predecessorsin-interest. It was also claimed that 2nd Appellant herein pending proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, executed a document in favour of 1st Respondent on 16/5/2007 surrendering the Suit property in favour of Temple admitting its Title. Therefore, the Appellants were estopped from claiming Title and maintaining the present Suit. The 2nd Respondent also claimed that it was a lawful Tenant of the Suit properties under 1st Respondent in whose favour Patta was granted in Inam Settlement proceedings. The 2nd Respondent also contended that the present Suit is hit by Principles of Res judicata and barred by limitation.