N. Authinathan, J.

The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 14.08.1996, passed in A.S No.75 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the judgement and decree dated 09.03.1992, passed in O.S.No.1593 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli.

2. Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

3. The idol of Sri Neelavaneeswarar, represented by its Executive Officer, Thirupangaly has filed a suit in O.S.No.1593 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Trichirappalli. The case of the plaintiff is that Thirupangaly Village is an estate as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 48 and it was converted into a ryotwari village under the provisions of the said Act. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant and his family members owned a house lying to the south of the suit property. They were archakas of the plaintiff temple. As the owner of the adjacent house, they claimed patta to the suit property. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The second defendant claimed that he had purchased the suit property from the first defendant. However, the first defendant himself has no right, title and interest in the suit property at any point of time. The second defendant encroached on the suit property and put up structures thereon. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title, after removing the superstructure put up on the suit property.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement. According to the second defendant, the suit property is far away from the temple precincts. The first defendant, as the owner of the suit property, sold the same to the second defendant under a sale deed (Ex.B.5), dated 24.11.1980. After purchase, the second defendant put up constructions. The suit property has been classified as 'occupied natham' and therefore, the second defendant alone has got title to the suit property. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial court, the Executive Officer of the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff has filed a copy of proceedings of the Director of Settlement (Ex.A.2), dated 25.11.1967. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove its title to the suit property. The appeal preferred in A.S.No.75 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

6. Notice of motion was sent to the respondents. Learned counsel Mr. Illanchezian appeared for the respondents. This Court formulated the following substantial question of law and admitted the appeal.

"Whether the Courts below are right in overlooking the statutory provision viz. Section 77 of the Tamil nadu HR & CE Act, when the document filed in this case and the description of property given in the plaint which has not been controverted to clearly shows that the suit property is adjacent and adjoining and in fact is in the precinct of the temple ?"

7. Learned counsel on both sides argued on the said substantial question of law.

8. It is not in dispute that Thirupangaly village was an 'Estate' under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 48 and it was converted into a ryotwari village under the provisions of the said Act. The plaintiff idol claims that it is the absolute owner of the suit property.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the property is situated within the precincts of the temple and it is adjacent to the temple tank and that therefore, it should be treated as 'temple property'. He relied on Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, to submit that the suit property belongs to the temple.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, supported the judgments of the Courts below. According to him, the plaintiff has not produced any document of