The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper stamping and registration for a valid sale deed, the distinction between dedication to a temple and a sale transaction, and the inapplicability of oral dedication in the given context.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.36 of 2004 dated 13.09.2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.325 of 2003 dated 27.02.2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006 passed in A.S. No.36 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.325 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The defendants in OS.No.325 of 2003 are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

4. Suit for declaration and possession.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property which is inclusive of a larger extent originally belonged to Venugopal S/o. Narayanasamy and on 10.09.2001, the plaintiff has purchased 0.20 cents of land in Survey No.160/10 from Venugopal and enjoying the same and in the abovesaid sale deed, the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as S.No.160/7, however, the boundaries contained in the sale deed would point out that it is only the property comprised in Survey Number 160/10 which had been alienated and there is no dispute over the lie of the suit property and the plaintiff had also mortgaged the suit property to one Deenadayalan and when the plaintiff endeavoured to put up a godown in the suit property for his saw mill, the defendants, without any authority, on 23.10.2003 encroached into the suit property to an extent of 5 feet of land and laid the foundation to an extent of 4 feet for the temple and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that they are the nattamai and panchayatars of the Kaipani colony of Tindivanam Taluk and the plaintiff's father-in-law Venugopal is also one of the nattamai and panchayatars of the abovesaid village and the people of the colony resolved to construct a temple for the deity Sri Karukkadiamman and accordingly, they had entrusted the work of construction of the temple to the sculptor Krishnadoss, S/o. Shanmugam on 13.12.2000 and even prior to the same, the construction had commenced and the same is to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his father-in-law and despite the same, Venugopal had sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 10.09.2001 and in the guise of the abovesaid sale deed, the plaintiff is endeavouring to obstruct the construction of the temple. The defendants are not constructing the temple in Survey No.160/7 and also put forth the case that Venugopal, as the nattamai, has sold an extent of 0.10 cents of land in R.S.No.160/10 on 10.11.2000 after receiving a sum of Rs.5,000/- i.e. Rs.500/- per cent and signed in a green paper styling it as a sale deed. As the buyer could not be ascertained, the sale deed was agreed to be executed in the name of the deity Karukkadiamman herself and registered after the construction of the temple. Thus according to the defendants, the sale deed executed by Venugopal in favour of the plaintiff is not legally valid and resultantly prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

7. In support of the plaintiff's case P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal. The first appellate court, on an appreciation of the materials available on record and the submissions put forth by the