JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal has been filed as against the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the defendants thereby, dismissing the suit filed for recovery of possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:-

The suit property an extent of 18.5 acres in survey No.104 in Kurumbur Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Thanjavur District was dealt under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as Act 26 of 1948). In the said land there is a temple, namely Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple. During settlement proceedings, the suit property was shown as temple Poromboke land. The plaintiff’s predecessor were managing the temple situated in the said land. Though the entire survey number in the Kurumbur Village was taken over by the Government under the Act 26 of 1948, temple situated in survey No.104 has not been affected by the said Act. The predecessor of the plaintiff, who was managing the temple, without any reasons whatsoever, sold an extent of 1.5 acres of the suit property to the third defendant. The vendor of the third defendant never had title to the property. Therefore, the said sale deed dated 02.05.1955 is not valid in the eye of law. Based on the said invalid sale deed, in the year 1993, the third defendant has put up a illegal construction in the suit property. The plaintiff is a hereditary trustee and he is managing the temple and its properties. Hence, he filed the suit for recovery of possession.

4. The third defendant, who claimed to have purchased an extent of 1.5 acres in the year 1955 took a stand to the effect that the suit property was never belonged to the temple and never classified as temple poromboke in the revenue records and except the place, where the temple is situated, the other places do not belong to the temple. The temple never had control over the suit property. If the temple had title to the properties, the same would have been reflected in the settlement proceedings. He further submitted that no patta has been issued in the name of the temple, whereas the third defendant, since the date of purchase is in possession and enjoyment of the property and he has also obtained patta in his name. It is his further contention that the suit has been filed with false allegations only when the defendants have questioned the plaintiff about the release of the land belonging to the temple. The plaintiff is not the hereditary trustee of the temple. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file a suit on behalf of the Supramania Swami temple?

(2) Whether the suit property belongs to the temple?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession?

(4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

6. On the basis of the pleadings, on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked and on the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked and Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked.

7. Based on the evidence and materials, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff / Temple, as against which, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having found that the suit property is a poromboke land allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the suit property is a common poromboke land and not belonged to the Temple and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that since the plaintiff and the third defendant had no title over the property as it is a Government Poromboke land and the temple has no right to retrieve the