The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government's right to file a suit for Escheat of property is contingent upon the completion of Escheat proceedings as per the relevant legal provisions.

This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.114 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

2.The short facts in the plaint necessary for deciding this appeal are as follows:-

One Subramania Swamigal @ Nondi Samiyar as was popularly known, was a very old and crippled Samiyar without any relatives whatever. He was living in Thoppil Pillaiyar Koil in South Rampart, Thanjavur. The public at large have great confidence, regard and faith on him. In return the public used to contribute cash and donations to the said Swamiyar, who was an orphan without any relatives whatsoever. During his life time, he saved considerable amount and other valuables, contributed by his devotees and Bakthas as kanikkai for the jabam and prasadam given by the Swamigal. The said Nodi Swamigal @ Subramanian Samigal died intestate without legal heirs on 23.5.1988 in the said temple premises. On receipt of information from the public the Tanjavur West Police registered a case in Cr.No.843 of 1988 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The temple was sealed by the Sub-Collector, Thanjavur, and after postmortem the body of the said Samigal was entrusted to one of his devotees viz., Thangamuthu. Thereafter, the Sub-Collector took an inventory of all the belongings of the deceased Swamigal as per Rules and Regulations in force. During inventory a promissory note for Rs.1,70,000/- was found in the temple premises along with other cash, vessels, jewels etc., The said promissory note was executed on 5.8.1985 by the defendant in favour of the said deceased Subramania Samigal for the said amount borrowed by him for his family expenses. The said promissory note was written and executed by the defendant himself and attested by one N.Krishnamurthy Gurukkal and one A.Meenakshisundaram. The defendant has made part payments of Rs.12,600/- and Rs.16,800/- respectively on 5.5.1986 and 5.5.1987 and the deceased Swamigal himself made endorsements of receipt of the said amounts from the defendant on the said dates on the back of the said promissory note. The Sub-Collector, Thanjavur then took possession of all the valuables, cash including the suit promissory note and other belongings of the deceased Swamigal, who died intestate without any legal heirs whatever to succeed to his estate Escheated to the Government of Tamil Nadu as per S.29 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu became the successor in interest and lawful owner of all the assets of the deceased Swamigal above named including the suit promissory note. The District Collector is now in charge of all the properties left by the Swamigal including the said promissory note. The Tahsildar, Thanjavur sent a registered notice on 2.8.1988 to the defendant through his Office Assistant Mr.S.Kaliaperumal calling upon the defendant to pay the balance of the suit promissory note amount and discharge the promissory notes debt. As the defendant was not available in his house at Regunathapuram on the said date, the same could not be served on him. But the defendant himself on coming to learn the visit by the said S.Kaliaperuaml, an Assistant from Taluk Office, Thanjavur, voluntarily came to the Taluk Office on the very next day on 3.8.1988 and received the said demand notice in person. He also acknowledged the receipt of the said notice in writing on the office copy of the notice in Taluk Office, Thanjavur. The defendant who received the said demand notice has not cared to pay the suit debt. But he sent a reply dated 12.8.1988 disputing the right of the government to realise the suit promissory note debt. Inter alia he has admitted his liability under the promissory note. The contents of the reply are not true and tenable. As there is no Will the properties of the deceased including the promissory note debt Escheated to the Government of Tamil Nadu which is entitled to realise the debt. In fact the defendant himself enclosed a xerox copy of the letter