Judgment.-The suit out of which this second appeal arises is for declaration of title and for possession of a building described as ‘kavadi madam’. The suit is filed by the Santhakula Sowmiyanarayana Kavaraya Community Endowments through its trustees. The title is claimed under Exhibits A-1 to A-3. The building was said to belong originally, to Ramalinga Pillai and that he mortgaged the property to a third party. There was a suit on the mortgage and, in execution of the decree, it came to be sold in Court auction. Exhibit A-l dated 24th July, 1923, in the sale certificate issued to the auction purchaser, viz., Palaniappa Pillai, of the property. Delivery of possession was taken as evidenced by Exhibit A-2, the certified copy of the delivery athakshi. The auction-purchaser sold the property to one Subba Naicker under Exhibit A-3 dated 22nd November, 1923. It is the case of the plaintiff that Subba Naicker purchased the property not for his individual purpose but only for the community as the property of a special kattalai, as he happened to be the mahimaidar of the community. It is the further case of the plaintiff that from the date of the purchase under Exhibit A-3, the madam was being run in the building as part of a kattalai in Palaniandavar temple, and that one Arayee Ammal who is the purchaser from the original owner, Ramalinga Pillai, was put in management of the madam.

2. The plaintiff claimed declaration of title and possession from the first defendant and the other defendants, who are said to be lessees under the first defendant, on the ground that Arayee Ammal who was the manager of the plaintiff -community, had purported to sell the property to the first defendant under Exhibit B-4 dated 27th December, 1951.

3. The defendants contended that the property did not originally belong to Ramalinga Pillai that it belonged to one Mahapuri Pandaram, that after him, his daughter, Lakshmi, succeeded to the property and Arayee, the vendor of the first defendant, is the daughter of the above said Lakshmi. According to the defendants, Arayee succeeded to her mother’s interest and she was in possession of the property in her own right and not as manager on behalf of the community as claimed by the plaintiff.

4. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The lower appellate has non-suited the plaintiff practically on the ground of the first defendant perfecting title by adverse possession.

5. The lower appellate Court has accepted the case of the plaintiff that Arayee, the vendor of the first defendant was in possession of the suit property only as a manager under the plaintiff. At the end of paragraph 11 of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has categorically held that Arayee was in possession of the property only on behalf of the community. It further held that, till 1951, when she purported to sell the property to the first defendant, there was no question of adverse possession.

6. It was of the view that, from the date of Exhibit B-4 the sale deed executed by Arayee in favour of the first defendant, possession of the first defendant was adverse to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff thereby lost title. This view is, obviously incorrect.

7. The lower appellate Court has not negatived the plaintiff’s case that the building which was purchased under Exhibit A-3 by Subba Naicker became the Kavadi Madam belonging to the specific kattalai conducted by the community and, as I said, it has, in fact, accepted the plaintiff’s case that Arayee, the vendor of the first defendant, was in possession of the property only as the manager under the plaintiff-community. On this finding, the further finding of the appellate Court that the plaintiff has lost title by adverse possession is clearly wrong. It had overlooked section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959). That section says that nothing contained in any law of limitation for the time being in force shall be deemed to ve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document