It is not necessary to seek declaration of title in a suit for recovery of possession.

M. JEYAPAUL, J.

The suit is filed seeking delivery of possession of the property bearing S. No. 2364/1 and S. No. 2364/2 measuring 22 grounds and 282 sq.ft or thereabout in Pidariyar Koil Street, Gopathy Narayanaswamy Chetty Street, Valeeswarar Koil Street,Mylapore,Chennai after removing the superstructure put up by the defendants.

2. The brief averments found in the complaint is as follows:

a) The plaintiff Arulmigu Kolavizhi- amman Temple situated at G.N. Chetty Street, Mylapore,Chennai600 004 is an ancient village temple. It was formerly known as Kolamoli Amman Temple. It is treated as “Ellai” Pidari for Arulmigu Kabaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

b) The land bearing S. No. 2364 Pidariar Koil Street, Gopathy Narayanaswamy Chetty Street, Mylapore, Chennai measuring 1 cawnie 7 grounds 2306 sq.ft. belongs to the plaintiff temple. It was endowed to the Temple several years ago for conducting poojas and ceremonies and for the upkeep of the temple. In the Madras Town Resurvey Register 1895-97, the plaintiff has been shown as the owner of the said land.

c) Subsequently, the said land in S. No. 2364 was subdivided into S. No. 2634/1 measuring 1 cawnie 7 grounds and 1334 sq.ft. and S. No. 2634/2 measuring 972 sq.ft. One Senji Archagar, the grandfather of the fourth defendant was the Poojari (Archagar) and de facto trustee of the Temple. He was in charge and management of the temple and its properties. He put up superstructure in a portion of the land and‘ was residing therein. He inducted several tenants into the rest of the portion of the land and was collecting rents from them. After his death in 1928, one Rajoo Archagar, the father of defendants 1 to 3, his sons Doraisamy Archagar and Shanmugam Archagar and their cousins were the poojaris and de facto Trustees of the temple and were in management of the temple and its properties as his legal representatives.

d) Rajoo Archagar and others started acting against the interest of the temple. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai passed an order in D.Dis.6940/57 dated 4.8.1958 and appointed one C.P. Munuswami Naicker as the Trustee of the temple and directed him to take charge of the temple and its properties. C.P. Munuswami Naicker filed M.P. No. 651 of 1958 on the file of the VI Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. He took possession of the temple as per the order passed by the said Magistrate dated 23.10.1958. He took steps to recover possession of the immovable properties of the temple from the ex-poojaris and de facto Trustees of the Temple.

e) Rajoo Archagar and others filed O.A. No. 9 of 1958 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai invoking the provision under Section 57 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1951 for a declaration that they were the hereditary trustees of the plaintiff temple. Their claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 30.4.1963. The appeal in A.P. No. 27 of 1963 filed by them on the file of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai was dismissed on 21.3.1964. They also filed O.A. No. 95 of 1958 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai under Section 57 of the said Act for a declaration that the temple and the properties attached to it were their private properties. By order dated 26.4.1960, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai rejected their claim and the said order will operate as res judicata as it has reached finality.

f) C.P. Munuswami Naicker or his successors in office did not succeed in their attempt to recover possession of the temple properties. Rajoo Archagar and others filed O.S. No. 27 of 1959 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai for a declaration that they were the absolute owners of the temple and its properties and also for permanent injunction. The said suit was not pressed on 9.8.1961. The plaintiff, represented by the then trustees, filed O.S. No. 2191 of 1971 on the file of the Cit