(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tirunelveli, in the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2008.
(2.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2008. The revision petitioner filed the suit for declaration that the suit properties belong to Sadaiya Pakkiri Lalamian Pallivasal, Palayapettai and for recovery of possession of the suit property from defendants 2 to 6. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the suit property described as item Nos.1 to 5 in the plaint was granted as inam to the Pallivasal namely Sadaiya Pakkiri Lalamian Pallivasal, Palayapettai. It is stated that the Pallivasal is a notified Wakf. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after abolition of Minor Inam under Act 30/1963, the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, by his proceedings for grant of ryotwari patta, dated 20.09.1967, directed to issue ryotwari patta in the name of the Pallivasal and that therefore, the suit properties in Town Survey No.1975 belong to the Mosque as the property is a Minor Inam settled in favour of the Pallivasal. It is also stated by the revision petitioner that the father of the first defendant and the father of other defendants took the suit property on lease from the previous Muthavalli of the Wakf by name Sadaiya Pakkiri Lalamian Pallivasal, Palayapettai and put up a temporary building. Since the first defendant has now executed two documents in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 6, the plaintiff states that the defendants wanted to grab the property fraudulently by creating documents and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit by claiming title to the property. It is the case of the defendants that the suit properties belong to the defendants as they are the ancestral properties of defendants and that the house bearing Door No.18, which is located in the suit property, is their ancestral house. It is further contended that the father of the first defendant and the grant father of other defendants had executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of one Shri.S.Maria Kanagaraj and that the said mortgage was later redeemed in 1977. The defendants also pleaded title by adverse possession by stating that the suit property was in the enjoyment of the defendants for more than 100 years. Except the mortgage, there is no other pleading with regard to the prior title of the defendants. In other words, the defendants could not even be pleaded their title from a known source except pleading that the property is their ancestral property.