JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 made in A.S.No.66 of 2016 by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.134 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore by allowing the above appeal and decreeing the suit as prayed for.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.66 of 2016, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore, in O.S.No.134 of 2010, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for declaration, delivery of possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

2.1. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to the government and thereafter it was endowed to the plaintiff, by virtue of title grant in T.D.No.2310 issued by the Inam Commissioner in favour of the plaintiff. The income derived from the suit property has been utilized for the temple. It was managed by its manager Abbai Naidu. The said Abbai Naidu had three sons viz., Gopalsamy Naidu, Saranagapani Naidu and Deenadayala Naidu. The said Gopalsamy Naidu had two sons viz., G.Sudersanan and G.Parthasarathy. Therefore, the said Abbai Naidu had no title, interest or right over the suit schedule property, since he was Manager and he was directed to manage the suit property belonged to the plaintiff.

2.2. While being so, there was dispute in managing the suit property between the heir of Gopalsamy Naidu viz., G.Sudersanan and one Palani. They filed proceeding before the Inam Abolition Tribunal in I.A.T.A.No.88 of 1971 and it was declared that the suit property is the temple property and as such no individual has right to get patta in their favour. Further held that the property comprised in survey No.2669/1 to an extent of 2.53 acres and the property comprised in survey No.2669/5 to an extent of 4 cents, totalling 2.57 acres belongs to the plaintiff by an order dated 07.11.1977, which was marked as Ex.A.3.

2.3. Again the three sons of Abbai Naidu filed suit for declaration in respect of the suit schedule property in their favour and recovery of possession from the third party in O.S.No.268 of 1961 and it was dismissed and declared that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff temple and confirmed up to this Court in SA.No.1040 of 1965. In fact, one Sudersanan, son of Gopalsamy Naidu filed another suit in O.S.No.498 of 1992 in the name of the plaintiff represented by him as the Manager, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. It was also decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2.4. Thereafter, one of the sons of Abbai Naidu viz., Deenadayalan and his grandson viz., Parthasarathy filed collusive suit against one Meera Bai, who is none other than the daughter of the said Deenadayalan, in O.S.No.290 of 1998 and sought for permission to sell the suit property without adding the plaintiff or the HR&CE Department as party. It was a collusive suit and the same was decreed. On the strength of the said decree, the suit property encumbered by execution of sale deed dated 08.07.2004 in favour of the first defendant. However, it was returned without registration for the reason that the property stands in the name of the plaintiff, while presented for registration. On the strength of permission obtained in O.S.No.290 of 1998, the first defendant filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.32553 of 2004 and as directed by this Court, the second defendant registered the sale deed dated 08.07.2004, that too after the period of 3½ years, without even insisting the presence of the vendo