JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 made in O.S.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at karaikal.)

The appeal suit is filed, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2004.

2. The brevity of the plaint is as under :

The ancestors of the plaintiffs had extensive agricultural properties garden lands, cultivable lands, house sites, etc., in Keezhakasakudi village of Kottucherry Commune. The ancestors and the lands were locally identified as 'Kasakudi Pannai' having more than 40 velis of land originally. They had a large Pannai House refers to Pannai Bungalow. This estate consisted amongst other things a number of houses and house sites. The Pannai Kariasthar and those who were associated with the Pannai work and the land owners were permitted to occupy the manaicuts and houses free of rent. Local people were permitted to put temporary shelters on the large extent of uncultivable lands. In one or two cases occupants refused to vacate the places put under their possession and the land owners had to take legal action to force them out.

Prior to the plaintiffs, one P.E.Mohamed Thaha Maricar and P.E.Mohamed Ali Maricar owned the lands together as inheritors from their father. These two brothers entered into a deed of partition on 7.9.61 executed and recorded in the Office of Notaire P.Srinivasan of Nedungadu. The properties were partitioned to metes and bounds and the parties to the partition took separate possession of the properties. Those items of properties which could not be divided exactly and earmarked were allotted by directions. Two such properties which came to the share of P.E.Mohamed Thaha Maricar are described as item No.25 and 30 in Lot No.1 in the partition deed. They are the 'A' & 'B' Schedule properties. After the partition, P.E.Mohamed Thaha Maricar took separate possession of all the properties mentioned in Lot No.1 in the partition deed. The suit properties were pasture lands on those days. Now, that the lands were unused and remain uncultivated and the soil had become hardened. P.E.Mohamed Thaha Maricar died survived by his widow, sons and daughters. One of the sons Mohamed Yasin and the daughters released their interest in the property in favour of the sons. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the legal heirs and representatives of T.Mohamed Ibrahim one of the sons and the plaintiffs 6 to 8 are the legal heirs and representatives of T.Hameed, who died subsequently. The plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of those properties. They are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the property. As per revenue records also, they are the absolute owners.

In the 'B' schedule, the patta is registered in the name of plaintiffs and there is one extension adding, The plaintiffs approached the concerned Department for deletion of this addition. But nothing happened. Many decades ago, the plaintiffs themselves have leased out these properties to various persons for various purpose and once for a toddy shop. This plot of land earned an ill repute as fs;Sf; fil jply;/ However, certain vested interest in the village with ulterior motive of getting benefits for themselves set up the 1st defendant Devasthanam to claim falsely that the property belongs to 1st defendant and that the defendants attempt to make a public issue of this matter. The defendants No.4 to 7 made an attempt to break the existing fencing, put up fence in the 'B' Schedule property in July 2003, which was stopped by a police complaint. The Devasthanam represented by one Ramasamy replied to a notice that the plaintiffs have encroached upon the temple land which is false and frivolous. Neither the long usage by plaintiffs nor a little deed nor inventory taken by the Hindu Religious Institution