JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2002 made in A.S.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999 made in O.S.No.574 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Udumalpet.

Aggrieved over the concurrent findings made in A.S.No.1 of 2000 dated 29.10.2002 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet and in O.S.No.574 of 1993 dated 16.09.1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Udumalpet, the appellants, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, have preferred this Second Appeal, praying to set aside the dismissal order passed by the Court below and to grant a decree in favour of them.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i). The Temple known as Arulmigu Mariamman and Vinayagar Temple situated at Kongalnagaram Village, Udumalpet Taluk, has been in existence from time immemorial. It is an ancient Temple. Way back in the 18th century, one Palayakarar of Madurai endowed the suit schedule properties, in favour of the above said Temple. The entries in Column Nos.8 to 11 of the Inam Register would show that, these properties described below in the schedule hereunder were granted for the support of plaintiff's Temple as “Devadayam”. The word “Devadayam” itself means lands given to the Temple. The grant was of Kudivaram and not the kist as, is done in some cases. The fact that these entries are found in the Inam Register, which was prepared in the year 1890 would show that, these Temples were in existence even before that time and the grant was made in favour of the Temple long prior to that.

(ii). In the year 1963, after the enactment of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Minor Inams Abolition Act”) the Government wanted to abolish the inams tenures, taking into consideration of the fact that, in several cases, the inams property has been wrongfully alienated and the alienates were found to be in possession in several instances for a long time. The Government wanted to regularise the inam tenure by converting the same into a ryotwari tenure. Consequent to that, the Government appointed the Assistant Settlement Officer under the provisions of the said Act, who in turn delegated his powers to Special Tahsildar, constituted under the said Act, who conducted an enquiry into the inam property and issued patta, according to the provisions of the Minor Inam Abolition Act.

(iii). The suit Temple was not properly represented at that time. The H.R.&C.E. Department had not appointed any trustees at that time. The Temple was being managed only by a de facto trustee cum Poojari. The first defendant is a Poojari at the Temple. Taking advantage of his dual position, the first defendant started making misrepresentations to the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam and tried to set up the title in his name. The orders were passed on 06.06.1968 in S.R.No.581/1968/M.I.Act 30/1963, Udumalpet Taluk, recognising the title of the plaintiff's Temple.

(iv). In the said order, the Tahsildar has referred to the extract of the Inam 'B' Register relating to the Title Deed (T.D.No.485). The Tahsildar has noted the facts that, the lands in questionare Devadayam inam lands granted for the support of the Temple. The grant was conferred permanently to the Temple by the Inam Commissioner. The Tahsildar has also noted the fact that, Kudivaram right in the village have been vested with the Temple. He has also pointed out that this is not a grant for any service holder. Therefore, the absolute rights to the Temple to get ryotwari patta were recognised and orders were duly passed.

(v). Challenging the said order, the first defendant preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.