ORDER :

V. Bharathidasan, J.

1. The revision has been filed against the order dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit.

3. The original revision petitioner viz., Mr. S. Ramanan was the 10th defendant in the suit. The first respondent temple filed the suit in O.S. No. 509 of 2016, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore for the following reliefs:

"(a) declaring the plaintiff idol is the absolute owner of the suit property more fully described hereunder and as a consequential relief direct the Defendants to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and,

(b) declaring the Partition Deed dated 14.09.1973 entered between deceased Gananadesikan and others is illegal and void and will not bind the Plaintiff Idol and,

(c) declaring the lease deed dated 25.05.1999 executed by deceased Gnanadesikan in favour of 10th Defendant is illegal and void and will not bind the Plaintiff Idol and,

(d) declaring the Court Auction Sale dated 12.03.2001 in favour of the 10th Defendant in E.P. No. 79 of 2000 in O.S. No. 650 of 1999 is void and will not bind the Plaintiff Idol and,

(e) grant a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from altering the physical features of the suit property and,

(f) directing the defendants to pay future profits from the date of plaint to till date of delivery of possession at such rate as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. and,

(g) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff costs of suit and,

(h) Grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court would deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

4.1. The above suit has been filed on the ground that, the plaintiff idol is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Earlier, the suit schedule property belonged to one Mr. Subramania Thevar, and his mother Mrs. Solaiammal, and they dedicated the property absolutely in favour of the plaintiff idol by a Dharma Saasanam (Gift Deed) on 15.12.1927, for performing a kattalai in the plaintiff temple and for performing Karthigai Deepam Uthsavam during the Tamil month of Karthigai every year. By virtue of the said Dharma Saasanam, the executants divested the right and domain over the suit property and dedicated the same absolutely in favour of the plaintiff idol.

4.2. The original executants of the Gift Deed died leaving behind one Mr. Nataraja Thevar the brother of Mr. Subramania Thevar and son of Mrs. Solaiammal as their legal heir to succeed their Estate. Mr. Nataraja Thevar died leaving behind his wife and his son one Mr. Varadharajan the first defendant and two other sons Mr. Gnanadesikan and Mr. Dakshinamurthy as his legal heirs. The said Mr. Gnanadesikan died leaving behind defendants 2 to 4 herein as his legal representatives. Mr. Dakshinamurthy also died and defendants 5 to 8 are his legal representatives.

4.3. Earlier, on 14.09.1973, the deceased Mr. Gnanadesikan and his family members in a family partition divided the suit property along with other joint family properties and the suit property was allotted in his favour. Thereafter, the deceased Gnanadesikan claiming the suit property as his personal property, leased out the same in favour of the 10th defendant for 30 years without getting any prior approval under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'HR & CE Act'). Thereafter, the 9th defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 650 of 1999, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, against the deceased Gnanadesikan alleging that he has borrowed money from him and the deceased Gnanadesikan without contesting the suit allowed the suit to be decreed by consent. Thereafter, to execute the decree in the suit an Execution Petition has been filed bringing the suit p