1. Appeal filed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.72 of 2004 dated 29.12.2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit property belongs to Dharmapura Aadhina Mutt represented by its Adhinakartha. The suit land was leased out to one Chidambaram Chettiar in the year 1927. He was permitted to put up a construction for the purpose of conducting Rig and Yajur veda pada salai (Samaradhanai) and to feed the students, for which, a paguthi (rent) of Rs.3/-was fixed per Fasli. The said Chidambaram Chettiar executed a paguthi deed dated 10.3.1927 agreeing to run the padasalai with a condition that whenever he was unable to run the said padasalai or violated the terms of the paguthi deed, he should vacate and handover vacant possession of the land to the Mutt. The said Chidambaram Chettiar and after his demise, his son Annamalai Chettiar and after his death, his eldest son, the first respondent herein, continuously enjoyed this property by performing the undertaking given in the paguthi deed.

3. When the 1st respondent violated the condition by subletting the suit property to the third parties, stopped the purpose for which it was let out and also defaulted in payment of rent, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 1985 before the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The said suit ended in a compromise dated 18.12.1991 and in terms thereof, fresh lease was given to the 1st respondent by fixing the lease amount at Rs.1500/-per fasli. Again it was agreed that if the respondent violated any of the conditions, he should vacate and handover vacant possession.

4. The 1st respondent was irregular in payment of lease amount and did not pay for the Fasli 1401 to 1403. Therefore, the appellant issued a notice dated 20.11.2002 to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent received the same and replied stating that his brother viz., the 2nd respondent is in actual possession and doing the Samaradhanai and forwarded the notice of the appellant to the 2nd respondent. Since no reply was received from the 2nd respondent, the appellant sent a reminder on 6.1.2003 for which, the 2nd respondent sent a reply that he had not received the notice dated 20.11.2002. Therefore, the appellant forwarded a copy of the notice dated 20.11.2002 to the 2nd respondent, for which there is no reply and the suit was filed for eviction and possession of the suit land after removal of the construction and for arrears of rent and damages.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent contested the suit. According to the 2nd respondent, the said Chidambaram Chettiar created a family trust and after his demise, his elder son Annamalai Chettiar and after his demise, his brother Ramasamy Chettiar were continuing the Samaradhanai. The said Ramasamy chettiar is the father of the 2nd respondent. He died in the year 1996 and the 2nd respondent took over the trust and performed the Samaradhanai. According to the second respondent, the compromise decree entered between the appellant and the 1st respondent is non-est and will not bind the respondent. The classification of the suit property is Natham and a Manai Patta was issued to the respondent by the competent Revenue authority. He is in possession of the property and the building thereon was assessed to municipal tax and has been regularly paid. From 1998, the respondent is enjoying the suit property as absolute owner by paying the kist for the land and also paying the tax to the municipality and therefore, has denied even the title of the appellant.

6. With the above pleadings the parties went for and the trial court framed eight issues, out of which, the following issues are important:

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?

2. Whether the contention of the 2nd defendant that grant of patta in his favour would entail the extinction of the plaintiff's rights in the suit property?

3. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the