The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the second defendant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, dated 29.11.2016, passed in A.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 20.11.2012, passed in O.S.No.2500 of 2004, on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, dated 29.11.2016, passed in A.S.No.93 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 20.11.2012, passed in O.S.No.2500 of 2004, on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.)

Common Judgment

1. S.A.(MD)No.202 of 2017 is filed against the order in A.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2500 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Trichy. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the original suit and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit.

2. S.A.(MD)No.203 of 2017 is filed against the order in A.S.No.93 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2500 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Trichy. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. The first respondent herein is the second defendant and the second respondent herein is the first defendant in the original suit.

3. Brief substance of the plaint in O.S.No.2500 of 2004 is as follows:

The suit property belonged to the temple. Ryotwari patta is in the name of the plaintiff. Originally, possession of the suit property was given to the predecessor of the first defendant viz., Naganatha Gurukkal for his service as Temple Archagar. But, the said Naganatha Gurukkal has no right to sell or mortgage the property. The first defendant is still working as Archagar in the plaintiff temple. The first defendant and his mother illegally sold the suit property to the second defendant. The second defendant has no right over the property. The second respondent is liable to pay compensation for the plaintiff for illegal occupation from 18.06.1984. The suit was filed for the recovery of possession and for mean profits.

4. Brief substance of the written statement filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.2500 of 2004 is as follows:

The suit is not maintainable. The suit property belonged to the first defendant and his paternal aunt one Pitchaiammal. Ryotwari patta is not a document of title. The suit property belonged to Pitchaiammal as her independent property. On 28.11.1967, settlement patta was issued in the name of Pitchammal. The plaintiff is not having any right over the suit property. The first defendant is the adopted son of Pitchammal and the sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant is valid. The plaintiff has not taken any steps against the issuance of patta in the name of Pitchammal. The plaintiff is estopped from claiming the property. Until the date of sale, the said Pitchammal was in enjoyment of the property. After the date of sale, the second defendant is enjoying the property and prayed the suit to be dismissed.

5. Brief substance of the written statement filed by the second defendant, in O.S.No.2500 of 2004, is as follows:

It is wrong to state that Ryotwari patta was granted to the ancestors of the defendants. The grant is a service grant. It is wrong to state that the first defendant is having only a right to enjoy the property and not an absolute right. Naganatha Gurukkal was the absolute owner of the property and the property was sold to the second defendant. The plaintiff failed to question the same for the past 20 years. Only when the second def