CHINNASAMY NAIDU Vs. K S SENGODA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is brought forth from the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, made in A.S. No. 67 of 1992 by the defendants 2 and 4 to 17 in a suit for declaration that the suit property belonged to the suit mentioned temples and for permanent injunction, whose defence was rejected by both the Courts below.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The public temples, called Mariamman Temple at Sengodampalayam and Vinayagar Temple at Kailasapalayam, were constructed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. One Seeranga Gounder as Dharmakartha, was administering the temples for 50 years. Thereafter, one Sengoda Gounder was administering the same for 10 years. The first plaintiff acted as Dharmakartha from 1966 till 1980. The suit property belonged to the said temples. They were registered in the names of the temples. The suit property was utilised for the purpose of conducting various poojas. The defendants 1 to 5, who belonged to the family of priests, managed to obtain a fraudulent and invalid patta in the year 1960, without complying with the provisions of Madras Minor Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 30/1963, as if they have purchased the suit lands, and they were in possession for more than 12 years. The same is void and of no legal effect. They attempted to sell the property in the year 1981. When the plaintiffs questioned the same, the defendants filed a suit in O.S. No. 294/81 on the file of the District Munsiff s Court, Sankari, for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was transferred to the District Munsiff, Tiruchengode and was renumbered as O.S. No. 734/81. The defendants also initiated proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr. P.C. The Executive Magistrate passed an order therein, keeping the property under attachment till the matter is decided by the Civil Court. They filed a petition to withdraw the said suit. They were also attempting to plot out the suit lands. The patta cannot confer title, and thus, the defendants' title was fallacious. They have misled the authorities to issue patta. Even as per the partition deed dated 10-12-1942, executed between the first defendant and others, the patta stood in the name of the temples. Since the property was held in trust by the predecessor of the defendants, they were not entitled to claim adverse possession. They never denied the title of the temples. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this suit in a representative capacity and separate affidavit under Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC has also been filed.

(3.) The suit was vehemently resisted by the defendants, stating that there is no dispute regarding the 2nd item of the suit property; that the first item of the suit property only belonged to them; that originally the suit lands were Devadayam lands; that the defendants and their forefathers were doing poojas at the temples for more than 100 years, and they have been enjoying the property; that the Government took the lands under Act 30/1963, and thereby the temples lost title; that after due enquiry, the Settlement Tahsildar issued patta in favour of the defendants, and they were directed to pay compensation; that accordingly, they paid Rs. 3.107/- for these lands; that no objections were raised either by the plaintiffs or by the villagers; that the petition filed by a non-hereditary Trustee before the Minor Inam Tribunal, Salem, was rightly dismissed; that, the Tribunal recognised the patta that was granted in favour of the defendants; that the revision filed before the High Court by the aggrieved party was also dismissed; that the suit property was also not utilised for the purpose of conducting religious functions, as alleged by the plaintiffs, hat since the villagers gave lot of troubles to the defendants, they initiated proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr. P.C. that the Sub-Collector, who enquired the matter, found that the patta was rightly granted in their favour; that the suit in O.S. No. 734/81 was rightly withdrawn by them, since the same was no longer necessary, in view of the final orders passed by the Inam Tribunal; that the defendants were the absolute owners of the first item of the suit property; that they were entitled to deal with the same; that the plaintiffs had no right to question the defendants about their intention to sell these lands; that the plaintiffs cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 10-C of the Minor Inam Abolition Act, since they did not object to the grant of patta in favour of the defendants; that in view of the patta in their favour, they have been in continuous open and uninterrupted possession of the first item of suit property; that when the villagers applied to the Collector of Salem to conduct the festival in these lands, the defendants filed O.S. No. 85/83 for declaration and injunction, and the same was decreed, and it is still in force; that the sale deed in favour of the first defendant dated 10-12-1942 also establishes the case of the defendants that the temples are no longer" the owners of the suit property; that the suit property is not trust property, as alleged by the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs had exhausted all remedies before all the forums; that they failed in all the Courts; that it was held by the High Court in those proceedings that no fraud has been either alleged or proved in respect of the patta granted in favour of the defendants; that the further declaration sought for as to the title of the temples is preposterous; that the plaintiffs cannot reopen all the issues, raised in the earlier proceedings, since they have already been over, and hence, the claim of the plaintiffs was to be rejected.