JUDGMENT :

[PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi in O.S.No. 102 of 2004, dated 08.02.2010.]

1. The appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.102 of 2004, dated 08.02.2010 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of vacant possession of suit schedule property for the past and future mense profits.

2. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant in the appeal. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as follows:

The Sri Subramaniaswami Deity of Sri Subramaniaswami Temple, Tiruchendur represented by its Executive Officer, Tiruchendur filed the suit, stating that the suit schedule property belongs to Sivagamiammal Kattalai attached to the plaintiff temple by virtue of a settlement deed, dated 20.09.1933 executed by Pitchammal, SM.K.Kumarasamy Chettiar and Sivagamiammal. The main object of the Kattalai was to perform pooja to Moolavar and Shunmugar Deity of the plaintiff temple during every Sasti Thidhi, Visaga Star and Kiruthihai Star. The other object of the Kattalai was to perform Archana with Coconut, Plantains and betel leaves when the procession of Utsavar deities passed the schedule house. Under the above said settlement deed, one Easwaraier, son of Muthaier was appointed as the trustee of the said endowment. The line of succession of the trustees vested with the legal heirs of the Easwaraier. The defendants 1 and 2 are the present descendants of the said Easwaraier. According to the plaintiff, the Kattalai was an absolute dedication for a specific service in the plaintiff’s temple and hence, a specific endowment. While so, Easwaraier illegally settled the suit schedule property in favour of his wife, namely, Avudaiammal, his daughter, Ammani Ammal and grandsons, namely, defendants 1 and 2 by a registered settlement deed, dated 28.04.1948. After the life time of Avudaiammal, the defendants 1 and 2 released their right in favour of their mother Ammani Ammal by a registered release deed, dated 23.12.1968. The said Ammani Ammal thereafter sold the said property to the third defendant by a registered sale deed, dated 14.10.1974. According to the plaintiff, all the above said documents (i.e) settlement deed, release deed and sale deed were illegal and the settlor, releasor and seller respectively had no personal right to the property as the property was endowed to the plaintiff deity. Therefore, the plaintiff pleaded that all the transactions were null and void and they did not confer any right or title in favour of the third defendant. According to the plaintiff, the endowment in favour of the plaintiff was an absolute one and hence, the plaintiff had right of general superintendence over the property dedicated to it. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the third defendant with past and future mense profits.

3. The third defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and also an additional written statement. According to the third defendant, the property did not belong to Sivagami Ammal Kattalai attached to plaintiff’s temple but it was the property of Ammani Ammal from whom the third defendant purchased the same by registered sale deed. The title of Ammani Ammal was traced to the settlement deed, dated 28.04.1948 and the relinquishment deed, dated 23.12.1968 executed by her two sons in her favour. According to the third defendant, at the time of his purchase, the building was in dilapidated condition and he had to spend huge amount to re-construct and ever since he is in enjoyment of the same. According to the third defendant, he came to know about the dedication deed only in October 2002, when the plaintiff sent notice to him. It was the third defendant’s further case that the endowment was not an absolute de