IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of ownership under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act requires appellants to provide evidence to rebut the established rights of religious institutions over inam lands.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: S.A.(MD) No.756 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004, passed in A.S.No.9 of 2003 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2000, passed in O.S.No.2155 of 1990 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

PRAYER: S.A.(MD) No.757 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004, passed in A.S.No.277 of 2004 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2000, passed in O.S.No.531 of 1994 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

PRAYER: S.A.(MD) No.758 of 2008 is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004, passed in A.S.No.276 2004 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2000, passed in O.S.No.532 of 1994 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

The plaintiffs in the suits are the appellants. The appellants in S.A. (MD) Nos.756 and 758 of 2008 have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the respondent. The appellant in S.A.(MD) No.757 of 2008 filed a suit for bare injunction against the respondent. All the suits were tried together and dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred separate appeals and the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the appellants have come by way of these Second Appeals.

2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit properties were originally Minor Inam lands. The respondent temple was given only Melvaram right to collect theervai and Kudivaram right belonged to one Kuppuswamy Reddiar and his predecessor in title. After coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, the right of the defendant to collect theervai was abolished and, under the settlement proceedings, patta was granted in the name of Kuppuswamy Reddiar and Karuppanna Kudumban, who are the predecessors in interests of the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant temple filed an appeal, challenging the settlement patta issued in the name of the plaintiffs' predecessors in C.M.A.No.139 of 1979 and the said appeal was allowed and the patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessors was set aside. The predecessors of the plaintiffs filed an appeal in S.T.A.No.140 of 1983 on the file of High Court of Madras. Taking into consideration the dispute between the parties, the S.T.A., filed by the plaintiffs' predecessors, was dismissed with liberty to establish their rights before the Civil Court. The present suits have been filed, based on the liberty granted in the said order, by claiming that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interests have been enjoying the Kudivaram right in the suit property from times immemorial. The plaintiffs, by denying the right of the defendant temple over the suit properties, filed the present suits, based on the liberty granted to them in the order passed by the High Court in S.T.A.

4. The respondent temple filed its written statement and claimed that the suit properties were Devadayam Iruvaram lands, belonged to it. It was also claimed that in the appeal filed by the respondent temple in C.M.A.No. 139 of 1979 on the file of Inam Abolition Tribunal, it was held that the temple was the owner of minor inam lands and hence the settlement patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessors was set aside. The respondent also claimed that the plaintiffs were the lessee of the suit property under the defendant and hence they were estopped from claiming title over the suit property. The allegation in the plaint as if the suit property was dealt with by the plaintiffs as private property and the defendant had been receiving only theervai was specifically denied.

5. Before the trial Court, all the suits, out of which the present Second Appeals are f