The main legal point established is that the earlier statutory proceedings did not conclusively decide ownership, and the suit was not barred by res judicata.

M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.163 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 and the first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit.

2. The first respondent filed the suit, being O.S.No.163 of 2012, before the learned Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam for declaration to declare that the plaintiff temple is the absolute owner of the suit properties and for injunction restraining Karaipangudars of Pandaravadai village, who have been arrayed in the representative capacity, from alienating the suit properties and for costs.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the first respondent/plaintiff is as follows:

Arulmigu Mariamman Koil at Punnainallur is a Hindu public and religious institution under the administration and supervisory control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and the same was under the administration of Hereditary Trustee of Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam as per the scheme framed by the HR & CE Department. There were immovable properties consisting of dry and garden lands belonging to the temples situated in the revenue taluks of Papanasam and Thanjavur.

4. As far as properties in Papanasam taluk are concerned, there was a village called Mariambalpuram (Inam), which was a hamlet of No.6, Pandaravadai village and was a Inam village. The said hamlet consists of 132-42 acres of 2 wet lands and 58-2 acres of dry lands. These lands were granted to the first respondent temple in the year 1788, which was later confirmed by the British Government, and the same was incorporated in the Sarvamanyam register maintained in the Collector's office, Thanjavur.

5. Karaiyedu Gramani village was divided into 18 Karais and each Karai was divided into 16 pangus. The village was governed by the system known as Amani tenure. As per the Amani tenure system, persons who were cultivating the lands are only tenants and they have to measure 65% of the net produce after deducting the common expenses. Thus, the temple was the absolute owner of the suit properties and persons who were in possession of the lands are only tenants and they cannot claim any exclusive right over the lands.

6. The contesting defendants are Karaipangudars living in Pandaravadai village because the system of Karaiyedu was still prevailing in the village and separate patta has not been granted in favour of any individual so far. None of the villagers could claim any exclusive right over any portion of the properties owned by the temple. Apart from that, the villagers cannot claim exclusive possession over the properties owned by the temple. Even as per the custom and usage prevailing in the village, none of the villagers could claim exclusive possession over any piece of land. Further, once a tenant was always tenant and the tenants are totally estopped from denying the title of the temple.

7. According to the first respondent, the suit properties are minor inams comprising 128 pungus, corresponding to 8 Karais of 16 pangus each. The lands situated in Pandaravadai village of Papanasam taluk had been granted for the benefit of the first respondent temple. Before the Settlement Officer, the first respondent claimed ryotwari patta, whereas the villagers representing each pangus were claiming patta on the basis of kudiwaram interest. According to the first respondent, the grant made in favour of the temple as Sarvamanyam, which clearly indicates that the temple has got Iruwaram rights. Therefore, it could easily be inferred that the villagers representing the pangus were only cultivating tenants with no occupancy rights and further the village was also governed by the system known as Amani tenure.

8. The case of the first respondent is that the Settlement Tahsildar, Settlement Officer, Inam Abolition Tribunal and the Special Appellate Tribunal are only statut