The Appellate Court erred by dismissing the cross-appeal without independent consideration, contravening procedural fairness, and the temple's claim to property based on service grant was upheld.

JUDGMENT

S. SRIMATHY, J.

Both the appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed in the Appeal Suit and Cross Objection hence both the appeals are taken up together and a common judgment is passed.

2.i. The second appeal in S.A.(MD)No. 83 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff / Temple against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2013 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

2.ii. The second appeal in S.A.(MD)No. 84 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff /temple against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2013 passed in Cross Appeal No.39 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur, partly confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

3. The plaintiff / temple in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendants in the suit are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking stated in the suit.

4. The suit is filed to declare the temple as an absolute owner of the suit property and consequently, direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff may be permitted to execute the decree and recover possession and also direct the defendants to pay mesne profits.

5. The brief facts stated by the plaintiff temple is that the suit properties are situated at Punjaithottakuruchi Village and is unenfrachaised Devadayam land dedicated to the plaintiff temple by the ancient rulers for proper administration of Thirumanjanam to the temple and the said dedication had been intended to the person who renders service of Thirumanjanam to the temple. As long as the service is rendered, the said person would be permitted to enjoy the suit property but without any right of alienation or create any encumbrance. To substantiate this, the photocopy of Inam Fair Register with Title Deed No.940 was produced and marked as Ex.A2. Under Minor Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963, the Government issued patta in favour of defendants without due enquiry with the plaintiff temple. The defendants with able assistance of Village Munsif and Karnam managed to get patta in their name by misrepresenting the facts before the Settlement Tahsildar. The Settlement Tahsildar has not issued any notice to the temple and the alleged enquiry has not been intimated to the temple authorities. If notice had been issued, the Settlement Tahsildar would not have decided to issue patta in favour of the defendants. Hence the enquiry is arbitrary and is not binding on the plaintiff temple. The suit property is a dry land and taking advantage of the situation, the defendants misrepresented the facts and obtained patta. The documents produced by the defendants has no concern to the suit property. The temple is the absolute owner of the property and no other person can create any encumbrance. The Settlement Tahsildar failed to consider the directive rules of the Settlement Act 30 of 1963. Now, the defendants are enjoying the land without rendering any service to the temple. The service of Thirumanjanam is now being rendered by salaried persons and the present service doer is receiving remuneration but not enjoying the suit property. Hence, the possession of t