The title of the plaintiff temple to the suit properties has been established and the appellants are not entitled to claim any rights against the temple property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 made in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli.

Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 made in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli.)

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. The 1st respondent in both the appeals as a plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, against the appellants and other respondents in both the appeals, who are the defendants in the said suit, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, a part of which has been serving as a passage, by raising any construction and further preventing the sight and view of the ancient Mottai Gopuram from all angles by the pilgrims and worshippers of Lord Sriranganathaswamy while visiting this ancient monument or in the alternative, if per chance before the service of injunction order, the defendants complete their unlawful act of construction, to pass a decree directing the defendants to deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property after removal of all such structures put up by them at their cost, if not through process of Court and for future profits from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession with costs of the suit. The trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003, partly decreed the suit, granting the relief of permanent injunction and recovery of possession, but sofaras the relief of future profits from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession, the trial Court gave liberty to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to work out its remedy under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 2 and 4 to 9 filed an appeal in A.S.No.685 of 2004. Pending that appeal, the 3rd defendant and two other third parties filed an appeal in A.S(MD)No.169 of 2009 challenging the judgment and decreed passed in the suit.

As pleadings and submissions are common, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief averments in the plaint are as follows:-

The suit properties are occupied by the historical and ancient Mottai Gopuram and other properties around the same belong to the plaintiff temple and it is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The entire land in the eastern area wherein, the ancient Motta Gopuram is situate in T.S.Nos.2163/1B14p, 2163/1B15p, T.S.No.2163/1B16p, T.S.No. 2164/2a, 2164/2b and T.S.No.2164/2c of Vellithirumutham Village, Trichy Taluk. These lands in various town survey numbers referred to among other properties are covered by the title deed No.1027 in favour of the plaintiff and a document therefor has been produced. The abovesaid Gopuram in T.S.No.2163/1B15p is situated in 55 cents of land. A rough sketch has also been produced therefor. The said Gopuram is facing east and west entrance and on the west, it connects Nelson Road and on the east, it connects Madras Trunk Road. It is only through this tower, the idol of Lord Ranganathaswamy used to be taken every year on the 8th day of Panguni Adhi Birama Thirunal. The plaintiff has been exercising the rights of ownership over the suit properties by undisputable possession and enjoyment for over centuries.

2.1. After the advent of the Tamilnadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, 30/1963, when the question of ryotwari patta to the inam properties came up, settlement proceedings were initiated by the settlement Tahsidlar, who took up the enquiry in respect of the suit properties as well as other properties. Against the order not granting ryotwari patta for the lands as put forward by the plaintiff, the plaintiff preferred appeals to the Minor Inams A