Authorities under HR & CE Act should take suit property back from the trespassers.

1. This appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990 in O.S.No.267 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Despite printing the name of the respondents, no one appeared.

4. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff could be set out thus:

The suit property described in the schedule of the plaint an immovable property measuring 30 cents, is situated in Madurai. As per Ex.A.1, the copy of the fair Inam Register dated 21.03.1989, it is found evidenced that the suit property was dedicated by the then Collector of the Madurai District to one Subbaraya Mudali, the father of Saravana Mudali for the support of a water pandal and Thirukkan to Kallaghar. The suit land was ordered to be registered under the head Inam. The said Inam was called as water pandal maniam for providing water to the public during the festival of Lord Kallalagar visiting Madurai. On enquiry, the Inam Commissioner in the year 1985, treated one Saravana Mudali as a trustee in possession of Inam lands which included the suit property. Subsequently, as per Act 30 of 1963, namely the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, all minor inams were abolished and the lands concerned came to be vested with the Government under Section 3 of the said Act. The Settlement Officer conducted enquiry and during such enquiry, patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff temple vide order in S.R.No.923/M.I.Act/MDU/66 dated 16.05.1967. The plaintiff temple has been become the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendants without any manner of right trespassed into the suit property and they are in occupation of it, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of possession.

5. Per contra, denying and disputing the allegations/averments in the plaint, the second defendant filed the written statement; which was adopted by the other defendants; the gist and kernel of it, would run thus:

(i) The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the averments/allegations in the plaint relating to the conferment of patta on the plaintiff by the Government are all false. The defendants and their predecessors in interest alone have been in exclusive possession from time immemorial. No notice was given by the authorities concerned under the Act 30 of 1963 to the defendants or their predecessors in interest. Even if there is any Ryotwari patta granted in favour of the plaintiff, yet preceding such conferment of patta, the defendants and their predecessors in interest had been in possession of the suit property and thereby they acquired absolute title over it. As such, the defendants have been occupying the suit property on their own right. The defendants also have objected before the authority relating to the conferment of such patta and that the proceedings are pending.

(ii) The suit property was formerly known as Palmirah Thope belonging to the family of Chetty Chockam Chettiar, and thereafter Venkatarayalu Chettiar and his family came in possession of it and this suit property, was one among the properties referred to in the partition deed dated 23.12.1869 and it is found stated therein that the suit property was purchased by them from one Saravana Mudaliar; the extent of it is mentioned as one measuring 4 1/2 kuzhies along with its boundaries which co-relates to the suit property. Under the said document, there was a direction to perform water pandal during the visit of Lord Kallalagar to Madurai during Chitra festival.

(iii) The defendants and their predecessors in interest have been in possession of it for over 120 years and it was not dedicated to the deity or to the plaintiff Devasthanam. A portion of the income derived from the suit property is utilised for the performance of Mand