The hereditary trustee's failure to establish his status and claim for recovery of possession led to the denial of the relief of recovery of possession.

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.233 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff, Sri Ayannar Temple, Kazhanikottai Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pattukkottai, represented by hereditary trustee Veeraiyan, had instituted the suit against 9 defendants seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and in the alternative, if it is determined that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties, then grant recovery of possession of the suit properties and for costs of the suit.

2. The suit property is nanja land measuring 0.57.0 acres in S.No.80/2, 0.05.0 acres in S.No.77/6, 0.03.5 acres in S.No.79/3 and 0.09.0 acres in S.No.79/5. This suit had come up for consideration before the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai and by Judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004, the relief of declaration of title was granted to the remaining extent of the first item of suit property excluding the portion purchased by the first defendant and for the 2nd to 4th items of suit property, however, the relief of permanent injunction and the relief of recovery of possession was not granted. It was held that Veeraiyan who represented the temple as hereditary trustee could not be granted those reliefs, since he had not established that he was the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff then filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2006 which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai. By Judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006, the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging that Judgment, the plaintiff had filed the present second appeal.

3. At the time of admission, notice alone was ordered to the respondents. The respondents entered appearance and thereafter, the following substantial question of law had been framed for consideration: "Whether the temple which is represented by hereditary trustee has right to seeking recovery of possession through the hereditary trustee?"

O.S.No.233 of 2000 (District Munsif Court Pattukkottai):

4. In the plaint, it had been stated the suit property situated in Kazhanikottai Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur Distrist, measuring 0.57.0 acres in S.No.80/2, 0.05.0 acres in S.No.77/6, 0.03.5 acres in S.No.79/3 and 0.09.0 acres in S.No.79/5 belonged to the plaintiff temple, Sri Ayannar Temple, Kazhanikottai. It was stated that V.Subban Ambalam, was the hereditary trustee. He died 10 years prior to the filing of the suit. After his death, his son Veerayian became the hereditary trustee. It had been stated that during the survey and settlement, patta was granted to the temple in the year 1959 with respect to the suit properties. It had been stated that the 1st to 4th defendants have no right or title over the suit properties. They were all close relatives. It was stated that during the U.D.R. Survey enquiry, joint patta was granted to the temple along with the fifth defendant. No relief was sought n the suit against the fifth defendant. Since the first defendant died, defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded as parties. Claiming that the defendants were threatening to encroach into the suit properties, the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and injunction and in case of encroachment, recovery of possession.

5. The second defendant filed his written statement. The averments made in the plaint were denied. It was specifically stated that Veerayian who represented the plaintiff temple was not the hereditary trustee. It was stated that Subban Ambalam was one of four chiefs. He was not the hereditary trustee. It was stated that patta was wrongfully granted in the name of the plaintiff. It was stated that item No.1 had been purchased by the first defendant Valliammai by sale deed of the year 1961. With respect to the second and