JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1997 in O.S.No.160 of 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2000 in A.S.No.12 of 1999 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The original suit was presented for a decree of declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and for recovery of possession.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The predecessors of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property on behalf of its members of Karuneekar Sangam on 10.06.1905. The purchase was made from and out of the common funds which belonged to the community. I am informed that Karuneekar Community members are those belonging to Pillaimar communityThe purpose of the purchase was for the construction of a Muttfor the benefit of the community people who come to Tiruvannamalai. Tiruvannamalai being an important religious place, it is known that devotees throng to the temple during festivals and on other important religious occasions.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that properties purchased in the name of the sangam were being managed by the representatives of the community and also by renting them out to various third parties. Sometime in the year 1946, one Rajamanickam Pillai filed a suit in O.S.No.402 of 1946 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, for declaration of his title. It was contended in that suit, that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff community. The said suit was dismissed and it was confirmed in A.S.No.331 of 1949. The plaintiffs further pleaded that yet another suit was presented in O.S.NO.447 of 1957 seeking declaration of title and injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of Karuneekar Community.

5. The plaintiff would state that the property situated in S.No.604/1 at Tiruvannamalai Town, measuring to an extent of 7004 square feet was leased out in favour of several third parties viz., Neelappa Choudry, Muthappa Choudry, Ellakkal, Nataraja Pillai and Babukkal. The northern portion of the property was lying vacant. Therefore, one Parasurama Naidu wanted to run a wood fuel depot on it and took up the premises on rent. The said Parasurama Naidu was paying rent and on his death, the property was taken over by his daughter – Saradhammal Ammal, who is the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff would further state that the defendants had constructed a building in S.NO.604/2 and it was objected to by the plaintiff. According to them, taking advantage of the construction in S.No.604/2, they have trespassed into the property belonging to the plaintiff sangam. The plaintiff came to know that the municipality, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, had effected sub-division of the property belonging to it in S.No.604/1 as S.Nos.604/1A, 604/1B1, 604/1B2, 604/1B2A & 604/1B2B. The suit property is under the present sub division S.No.604/1B2A and 604/1B2B.

6. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is not a registered society and that the plaint is silent as to who are all the members of the alleged Karuneekar Sangam. According to them, there is no relationship between Seer Karuneekar Caste Mutt or Seer Karuneekar Nandhavana Madalaya Dharma Paripalana Sabai and the plaintiff. They would further deny that the suit property had been purchased for the purpose of the benefit of the community and that the property had never been leased out to any person. On the contrary, they would plead that the property is a Government Natham Poramboke, which had been encroached upon by the defendants in and around 1961 and they had constructed a building thereon. They would further plead that from 1961 till date, i.e., till 1979, they are in occupation of the property and that they have perfected title by adverse possession. They would also plead estoppel by conduct and would state that the property was never lyi