The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not barred by the grant of patta under the Inam Abolition Act, and the appellant must prove adverse possession and pre-existing right over the suit property to succeed in the claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1992 made in A.S.No.16 of 1977 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.1976 made in O.S.No.628 of 1974 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.)

1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and on appeal filed by the appellant, the findings of the trial Court were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property belonged to him as he purchased the same under sale deed dated 23.06.1962. The respondent claimed that from the date of purchase, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till 1972. It was further averred that the appellant trust owns a school on the western side of the suit property. It was further averred that in or about 1972, the appellant school authorities trespassed into the suit property. The respondent sent a pre-suit notice to the appellant''s school Headmaster on 15.04.1974 and there was no reply by the appellant. In these circumstances, the respondent was constrained to file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The appellant herein filed a written statement and denied the title of respondent over the suit property. The appellant claimed that the respondent had never been in possession of suit property. The appellant also claimed that the suit property was a poromboke land and the same was alienated in favour of appellant by Government under G.O.Ms.No.1830, dated 15.12.1923 . The appellant claimed that the respondent had no property on the eastern side of their school. It was also averred in the written statement that Inam Palayam Chettikulam Village, in which, the suit property is situated was taken over and it had been surveyed by the Survey Department. The appellant also claimed that patta had been granted in favour of appellant in respect of the suit property. On these pleadings, the appellant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, the respondent examined three witnesses namely PWs.1 to 3 and documents Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on his side. On behalf of the appellant, four witnesses were examined namely DW1 to DW4 and one document was marked on his side as Ex.B1. The Advocate Commissioner report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the respondent was entitled to declaration and recovery of possession as prayed for and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 1977 on the file of II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

5. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant perfected title by adverse possession and consequently, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed a second appeal in S.A.No.860 of 1979. The second appeal was allowed by this Court on the ground that the First Appellate Court was not justified in rendering the finding on the question of adverse possession even without a plea to that effect by the appellant. This Court after observing so set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to its file with an observation that if the appellant herein succeeds in showing that Ryotwari patta issued to it under Ex.B1 relates to the suit land then the effect of such patta on the question of title to the suit property had to be gone into by the first Appellate Court. After remand, the appellant herein filed an additional written statement and raised a plea of adverse possession. In the additional written statement, it was conte