The central legal point established in the judgment is the ownership of inam lands under the Inam Abolition Act and the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate disputes related to such properties.

1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Erode, and first claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 7 of 1994 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode is the appellant in both the appeals.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 was filed by the respondent for declaration that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 is as follows:

3. The suit properties are Devadaya Inam lands granted to the idol Arulmighu Nageswaraswami for its support, upkeep and maintenance. The grant was confirmed permanently under Tile Deed No.T.D.460 in or about the year 1863 and the grant was in respect of both Kudiwaram and Melwaram. The first defendant/the appellant herein is the son of the second defendant and they claimed to be in possession of the suit property under the patta granted under the Inam Abolition Act, 1963. The suit properties were not sold by the Temple and therefore, the defendants cannot claim any right or title over the suit property and title cannot be conferred on them on the basis of the patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar on abolition of Inams. The ownership of the land vests with the Government and that would not destroy the anterior title of the owners and considering the nature of possession, ryotwari patta cannot be granted and ryotwari patta would be granted in recognition of title. The defendants have no right or tile and they somehow managed to get ryotwari patta from the Settlement Tahsildar and claimed ownership. It is further stated that in respect of lands in Survey No.143/2 Kondalam Village 0.08.0 hectare was acquired by the Government and compensation of Rs.2,999.90 was awarded and the compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The defendants were parties to the said award and they have not challenged the same. Thereafter an extent of 0.26.0 hectare in R.S. No. 143/1B which was a portion of the suit property was also acquired by the Government and compensation of Rs.10,695/- was awarded and the defendants claimed that compensation and therefore, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1908 before the Sub Court, Erode in L.A.O.P. No. 7 of 1994. As the defendants claimed title to the suit properties, the suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession.

4. The first defendant filed a statement contending that the suit, filed by the Managing Trustee without impleading the other Trustees, is not maintainable. The suit property and larger extent was sold by the Gurukkal of the temple 80 years earlier before coming to force of the Act 30 of 1963 and therefore, the defendants were in possession of the suit property as owners and after coming to force of Inams Abolition Act 30 of 1963, the inam was abolished and the title vested with the Government and after conducting enquiry, ryotwari patta was given to the first defendant by the Government and therefore, the first defendant became the owner of the property.

5. It is further stated that while granting patta under Section 11 r/w Section 8(2)(i)(b) of Act 30 of 1963 in favour of the defendants, a condition was imposed to pay 20 times of fair rent to be fixed by the Tahsildar and that was also paid and ryotwari patta was given after conducting due enquiry and the plaintiff was also party to the proceedings and hence, it is not open to the plaintiff to challenge the ryotwari patta. It is further stated that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the Settlement Tahsildar after conducting enquiry issued patta in favour of the defendants and the same can be challenged only before the Tribunal constituted under the Act 30 of 1963 and civil court has no jurisdiction. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession?

2. Whet