Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar
G.Muthusamy (died) – Appellant
Versus
Executive Officer, Katheer Narasingaperumal Koil – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.Sounthar, J.
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 interest
Statutory presumption under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act establishes ownership rights of religious institutions over inam lands, unless rebutted by substantial evidence.
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.
Statutory grants of title following inam abolition provide the necessary basis to recover possession without seeking additional title declaration.
The temple established its title over properties through legal processes, while defendants failed to prove their claims, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals under Section 100 is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reassess factual findings unless a clear error in law has been demonstrate....
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish entitlement and lineage in inam land claims, particularly when historical grants are involved.
Appellant has miserably failed to establish a cogent link as to who were his predecessor in title and merely stating that patta has been granted would not be sufficient and going by such statement
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the seco....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
