IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between complete and partial dedication of property to religious purposes is critical in determining ownership rights, with complete dedication resulting in the property being held in trust for public religious charity.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Avinashi, dated 11.01.2017 in A.S.No.1 of 2015 confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif, Avinashi, dated 27.04.2009 in O.S.No.311 of 2005.

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title and mandatory injunction seeking direction to the respondents to issue patta in the name of the appellant/plaintiff. The suit as well as First Appeal filed by the appellant herein have been dismissed. Hence the appellant is before this Court.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, suit property originally belonged to Chinnan Chettiar and family. In the year 1901, there was a registered partition between son of Chinnan Chettiar viz., Karuppan Chettiar and his two sons Viswanathan Chettiar and Venkatachalam Chettiar. In the said partition, the suit property in S.F.No.93 was allotted to Viswanathan Chettiar under ''B'' schedule to partition deed. As per the recitals in the document an obligation was imposed on Viswanathan Chettiar to perform certain religious duties out of the income from the property. The said Viswanathan Chettiar in the year 1904 executed a release deed in favour of appellant/plaintiff in respect of suit property. The patta for the suit property was in the name of Viswanathan Chettiar and he addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Avinashi on 05.06.1928 requesting him to transfer patta in the name of appellant/plaintiff. Thus the revenue records namely patta had been in the name of appellant from 1928 to 1987. In the year 1987, Tahsildar of Avinashi issued patta for the suit property in the name of appellant Sabai represented by its President Venkatachala Chettiar. Thus the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of the appellant for more than 100 years. Since the suit property could not fetch desired income, the appellant decided to construct a Kalyana Mandapam to generate income so as to look after the obligations imposed by 1901 document. In the year 1988 clandestinely the patta of the suit property was transferred in favour of 5th respondent temple. The appellant represented to the 4th respondent to make necessary correction in the revenue records namely patta seeking removal of 5th respondent's name and for the inclusion of appellant name. The 4th respondent gave a finding in favour of appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur. The order passed by the 4th respondent was confirmed by Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent preferred a revision before the second respondent and the second respondent without proper appreciation of records set aside the orders of respondents 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court and the same was dismissed. Hence, the appellant preferred a Writ Appeal and the same was disposed of by observing that the appellant was entitled to file a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief. Therefore, the appellant has filed the present suit seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction as prayed for.

3. The second respondent filed a written statement and the same was adopted by other respondents wherein, it was averred by the respondents that the suit property had been dedicated to the 5th respondent temple under partition deed dated 26.07.1901. The above said Viswanathan Chettiar was only given right to perform the religious services out of income from property. But contrary to the recitals in the partition deed, he released his right in the suit property in favour of certain individuals and Viswanathan Chettiar had no right to execute such a release deed. It was also averred that the property was not absolute property of the Viswanathan Chettiar to