The jurisdiction of the civil court to decide questions of title is not ousted by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963).

K.M. NATARAJAN, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed by this court in A.S. No. 1200 of 1979, confirming the dismissal of the suit by the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can briefly be stated as follows: The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed the suit for a declaration that the suit properties are wakf properties and for recovery of possession thereof from the respondents/defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were formerly comprised in I.D. No. 227 and both the warams were granted to the Pallivasal of Goripalayam. Madurai, for its maintenance and upkeep and that they are wakf properties. The persons who had been in management were not competent to alienate the properties. After constitution of the Wakf Boards enquiry was made it was learnt that the suit properties were wakf properties and they were also listed in the Gazette. Since no one had instituted suit within one year from the date of Notification the character of the properties as Walk properties become conclusive and hence the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The said suit was resisted by the respondents who are the defendants in the suit, mainly on the ground that the suit properties which were minor inam lands, were subject to the provisions of the Tamil nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, Act 30 of 1963 and that patta had been granted in their favour negativing the claim of the Board for such patta and that in view of the finality reached in they said proceedings, it is not open to the civil court to entertain the suit or to question the validity of the order passed under the provisions of the Act. It was also contended by the respondents that they and their predecessors have been in possession of the properties from 1900 onwards and that it was upheld by the authorities and that the suit is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the suit properties are not wakf properties at all.

4. The trial Sub Judge on a consideration of the documentary and oral evidence came to the conclusion that the suit properties originally were wakf properties and that the inam was subsequently enfranchised by the Government and hence the Pallivasal lost all their rights therein. Further, the respondents have established their possession of the suit properties for more than 60 years prior to 1.4.1960 as contemplated under S. 8(2)(i)(a) of the Act and that the respondents and their predecessors have even prior to 1.8.1947 perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession. The title of the Board was lost or extinguished and the suit is barred by limitation. Consequently the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed A.S. No. 1200 of 1979 before this court and the appellant was unsuccessful. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff mainly contended that the finding of the learned single Judge of this Court as well as the trial sub Judge, relying on the decision in Chinnappa Goundarv. S. Seshadri AIR 1981 Madras 8, that the civil court cannot go into the question of title when once patta was granted by the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam 98 L.W. 849 = AIR 1986 S.C. 794 which arose against the decision of this court in State of Madras v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam 1969-II M.L.J. 281. According to the learned counsel, in view of the said decision, the decision relied on by the learned single Judge, as well as other decisions where similar view was taken, were no longer good law. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the decision in Ramanujam Kavirayar, T.K. v. Sri Lakshmi Sivapra