1. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of David Christian, J. (as the learned Judge then was) in S.A.No.1573 of 1987. The grounds urged for review are as follows:

It has been found by the Courts below that the plaintiff’s grandfather and father were performing the services in the temple from the year 1922. Still they chose to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from interfering otherwise than by due process of law. Having observed that the plaintiff questioned the title of the temple to the suit lands, the learned Judge ought to have found that the plaintiff and his father were prima facie entitled to ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the description of the plaintiff’s father as the temporary oczhiandar for the time being in the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsilder under Exs.A-1 and AA2 was only incidental to the grant of ryotwari patta and made in a summary manner. The learned Judge erred in taking into consideration that the family of the original grantee became extinct and that prior to the appointment of the plaintiff’s grandfather, service holders came from different families. The learned Judge ought to have considered the title independently, notwithstanding the orders passed under Exs.A-1 and A-2. There is also no evidence to show that the plaintiff’s elder brother late Sri Ramachandra Sastri obtained the consent of his father or any other male member of the family before deposing before the Settlement Tahsilder. The learned Judge erred in ignoring the plaintiff’s legitimate expect ation to continue in service. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalingaswamigal Madam , AIR 1986 SC 794 the learned Judge ought to have held that the plaintiff was entitled to seek a permanent injunction to protect his long possession against interference from the defendants otherwise than by due process of law.

2. The suit came to be filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment and possession of the suit property by the plaintiff alleging as follows:

Originally the suit property was granted as inam in favour of one Sesha Shastri and after him, it devolved in favour of his heir Subramania Shastri. Subrarmania Shastri died issueless and the family became extinct. The grant was made in favour of the persons who were to do the said oozhiam or service to the temple. After Subramania Shastri’s death, one Subbaraya lyer was appointed to’ perform the said services. After a few years he also stopped doing the services. In 1922 the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff by name Raju Shastri was appointed to do the said oozhiam. He was doing the oozhiam till 1932 and retired due to old age. From 1932 the plaintiff’s father Easwara Shastri was appointed as oozhiamdar. At the time he was made oozhiamdar, the properties had been encumbered to third parties by the previous inamdars. The plaintiff’s father gave a petition to Revenue Authorities and obtained an order of resumption of lands in 1945. Thereafter, the properties were resumed by the plaintiff’s father a nd were in his possession and enjoyment. During settlement proceedings also ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff’s father. He had put up a house in the suit schedule property and he was raising crops in the rest of the lands by installing a motor pumpset in the well. Only if the oozhiamdar died without any issue or legal heirs, the temple could appoint another person. But, the plaintiff being the son of Easwara Shastri and was doing service for 12 years after the father became old and the lands having been endowed for the purpose of performing services to the temple, the lands could not be utilised for any other purpose by the temple. The temple had no right to lease out the lands to third parties. At the in