Temple lands cannot be sold without proper authorization, and encroachers cannot claim title through unauthorized constructions.

JUDGMENT :

The Appeal Suit is filed by the Appellants, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2012 made in O.S. No. 22 of 2010 on the file of the learned District judge, Nagapattinam.

2. The Appeal Suit is filed by the sole Defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam. During the pendency of this Appeal, the sole Appellant/Defendant died and therefore his legal heirs were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 4.

3. The Executive Officer of Arulmigu Vedaraneswaraswamy Thirukovil, Vedaranyam, as Plaintiff, had preferred the suit in O.S. No. 22 of 2010 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam against the sole Defendant/K.R. Srinivasan seeking the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and for eviction of the Defendant from the suit property after removal of construction put up in the suit property. The Plaintiff also sought for mesne profit after passing of decree in the suit.

4. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:-

4.1. The Plaintiff is a Temple. The land comprised in Survey Nos.175/3A 1A1A1A1A and presently bearing Survey No.175/84 is the subject matter of the property. The said property is the inam property given in favour of the Temple through a gift made by the then Ruler of Thanjavur Shri. Sahaji Raja in favour of the Temple vide T.D.No.840 as Inam which is covered under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26/1963). After enquiry by the Settlement Officer, the Plaintiff/Temple was granted Patta to the suit property in the name of the Temple. Except the Temple Authorities, no other person has any title or interest over the property. However, the Defendant attempted to put up construction in the suit property on 20.06.2009 and subsequently, he completed the construction. When the Defendant attempted to put up a construction in another portion of the property on 10.04.2010, the Plaintiff/Temple issued notice directing the Defendant not to put up any construction as the property belongs to the Plaintiff/Temple. However, the Defendant claimed that he had purchased the suit property through registered sale deeds dated 05.02.2004 and 09.02.2004 from one Nagarajan and his family. The conduct of the Defendant is found to be illegal as he had encroached the property belonging to the Temple and attempted to put up construction forcing the Plaintiff to issue notice calling upon the Defendant to vacate the property and handover vacant possession. As the activities of the Defendant are found to be detrimental to the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff Temple, the suit was filed.

4.2. On notice, the Defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that the suit property belonged to one Subramaniya Chettiar. From Subramaniya Chettiar, one Vedharethinam Pillai purchased the same on 02.06.1963 and he was in enjoyment of the same. At the time when the property was purchased by Vedharethinam Pillai, there was a tiled house in the suit property. Under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 , enquiry was conducted and later Vedharethinam Pillai was granted Patta in respect of the suit property and he was also in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After his lifetime, his legal heirs were in enjoyment of the same and thereafter, sold the property to one Nagarajan, S/o. Sundara Gounder. From Nagarajan, S/o. Sundara Gounder, the Defendant purchased the property on 05.02.2004 and 09.02.2004. Ever since the date of purchase, the Defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Plaintiff has no right over the suit property. The Plaintiff had not filed any document to show that the property belongs to the Temple. The Plaintiff had not objected the Defendant while putting up construction in the suit property. After completing the construction, the Plaintiff had made an alleged claim. The su