RAMASAMY Vs. TAMILVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 23 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The respondents filed two suits in a representative capacity in O.S. Nos. 81 and 353 of 1996. O.S. No. 81 of 1996 was filed by Ramasamy Gounder and three others seeking a declaration of the title of the Mariamman Temple at Devampalayam and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the said Temple. Initially O.S. No. 81/1996 was filed against the three defendants viz., (i) Ramasamy (ii) Shanmugham and (iii) the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur. The defendants 1 and 2 alienated the property in favour of third parties during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No. 81/1996. Contending that the suit property has been alienated by creating a sale deed dated 15.07.1996 in favour of third parties, the subsequent suit in O.S. No. 353 of 1996 was filed by impleading the purchasers. But, the prayer in both the suits are same. The facts that led to the filing of the suits are narrated in the plaint as follows.

(3.) An extent of 8.62 acres in S.No. 238, Devampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk was granted to the Poojaris for performance of service to Devampalayam Mariamman Temple. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 81 of 1996 are the legal heirs of the previous Poojaris of the temple in whose favour patta was granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Lands (Act 30 of 1963). The third defendant in O.S. No. 81 of 1996 was the competent authority under the Act to initiate proceedings against the defendants 1 and 2, for having failed to comply with the conditions imposed while granting patta. According to the plaintiffs, the lands being minor Inam lands, under Act 30 of 1963, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam. The settlement Tahsildar has granted patta in favour of Palanipandaram and Kuppapandaram, ancestors of the defendants 1 and 2 under Section 8 (2) (III) of the Act. According to the plaintiffs, patta was granted to the ancestors of the defendants 1 and 2 subject to an option that they have to either pay the amount equal to twenty times the difference between the fair rent and the kist payable in respect of the land and get the land discharged from the service or to hold the lands with an obligation to render service. The ancestors of the defendants 1 and 2 did not discharge their obligation as per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. If the amount is not paid, then they should continue to perform the service. The order also prescribed a period of six months within which the amount has to be paid. Claiming that the legal representatives of the grantees were performing the service till 1989 and thereafter they stopped the performance of the service and thereafter, the villagers have been in possession of the property, the suit in O.S. No. 81 of 1996 was filed for declaration of the title of the Temple and for consequential injunction.