Civil court can adjudicate the suit filed by temple.

.1. The legal representatives of the defendant are the appellants. The respondent herein field suit O.S.No.181 of 1976 before the District Munsif of Kulithalai against the appellants father Vadakali Muthuraja for declaration that the respondent temple had title to the suit property, for possession, for Rs.4,380/- by way of accounting for the income, for future profits and for costs, averring as follows:

.The suit property is a nanja land of an extent of 73 cents is S.F.No.276/16. Originally it was a dry land. It was comprised in Inam title deed 752 and it was granted to the respondent temple. Except the respondent, nobody else had any manner of right in the said property, that the suit land was Inam land granted to the respondent temple could not either in fact or in law be disputed by the defendants/appellants as the minor inams were notified under Act 30 of 1963 by the Government on 12. 1967. The Inam Settlement Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Act 30 of 1963 and granted ryotwari patta to Vadakali Muthuraja on payment of consideration due to the Government, The said order was not binding on the respondent and could not affect its title to the suit property. The notification under Minor Inams Abolition Act (Act 30 of 1963), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was issued on 12. 1965. In any event, after the said date, Vadakali Muthurajas possession was unlawful and he was bound to pay the income to the respondent at the rate of Rs.10 per year to the respondent temple as mesne profits and also surrender possession of the land to the temple. Inspite of repeated requests the said Vadakali Muthuraja did not surrender possession nor did he pay the mesne profits. Hence the suit was filed for the reliefs already mentioned.

.2. The defendant Vadakali Muthuraja resisted the suit inter alia contending as follows: The respondent temple had no title much less any subsisting title on the date of the suit. It never exercised any manner of right over the suit property. It had no right either absolute or prescriptive. The defendant and his predecessors-in-interest were in open, exclusive, long, continuous uninterrupted and actual possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for over 100 years in their own right. They were having the patta in their name and the kist was paid in their own independent capacity. They had title proprietory, possessory and prescriptive over the suit property. Vadakali Muthuraja was bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration under two sale deeds on 210. 1960 executed by the predecessors-in-title. On and from that date he was alone in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land in his own right. He was also granted patta under the Act, after due enquiry. The suit land was a dry land and he had reclaimed it at a huge cost of Rs.7,000 about four years prior to the suit for wet cultivation. The respondent temple was fully aware of the proceedings and he was also party to the same. It was final and conclusive and the respondent temple was bound and was completely estopped from questioning the same. The respondent had not given any reason for non-production of the order in T.K.245/67 dated 12. 1967 to show that the grant of ryotwari patta was subject to payment of consideration due to the Government and as to why such order was not binding. The respondents suit was barred by limitation. Vadakali Muthuraja was only in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right. The suit was liable to be dismissed and the court has no jurisdiction to determine the quantum of fair rent.

3. The trial court framed as many as seven issues and by its judgment and decree dated 111. 1978 granted the declaration of the title to the suit property in favour of the respondent and for possession of the same and for past mesne profits for a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The trial Court also directed ascertainment of future mesne profits from the date of suit till dat