Statutory grants of title following inam abolition provide the necessary basis to recover possession without seeking additional title declaration.

JUDGMENT :

N. MALA, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate court in A.S.No.327 of 1991 on the file of Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. For narrative convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff is the temple of Sri Jambukeswarar and Akilandeswari, Tiruchirappalli represented by its Executive Officer. According to the plaintiff, the suit land is Iruvaram Inam land granted in favour of the plaintiff temple by inam title deed No.722. The plaintiff states that twin interests of Melawaram and Kudiwaram vested in the temple. By the proceedings in case No.54/70, on 16.05.1970 ryotwari patta was granted to the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff states that the suit land is a portion of the land comprised in its title deeds including in the order of the Settlement Tahsildar. According to the plaintiff, the order of the Settlement Tahsildar was not appealed and thus attained finality. The plaintiff states that the first defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land and is cultivating the same. The plaintiff states that the first defendant failed to pay rent to the plaintiff and therefore the defendant's possession of the suit property is unlawful. The plaintiff therefore issued a registered lawyer's notice on 19.09.1978, calling upon the defendant to surrender possession of the suit land to it. The defendant issued a reply notice on 11.10.1978 raising evasive and untenable issues. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property, for past mesne profits, for future mesne profits and for costs.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the issues raised in the plaint apart from claiming title. The defendant contended that the property belong to one T.S.Palaniandava Mudaliar and that he purchased the same from him for valuable consideration of Rs.17,500/- under a registered sale deed dated 01.08.1973. According to the defendant, the extent given in the plaint was incorrect since the actual extent of the property was 1 acre and 60 cents in Survey No.104 in Appadurai Village.

5. The defendant contended that his vendor and his ancestors were in possession of the suit property for over 100 years, exercising right of full ownership over the property. The defendant denied that the plaintiff possessed Keelavaram right to the property. The defendant contended that no notice of enquiry in the settlement proceedings by the Settlement Tahsildar, was served on him. The defendant contended that the settlement proceedings were not conclusive on title and the same had to be adjudicated before the civil court. According to the defendant, there were unimpeachable documents to show that the suit property had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendant's vendor's grand-father Velara Mudaliar. The defendant further contended that long before the notified date, the property ceased to be a service inam as contemplated by Act 30/1963, and that the ancestors of the defendant's vendor had not rendered any service and did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. The defendant contended that after the proceedings in A.S.No.37 of 1859 before the Civil Court, Trichy, the ancestors of the defendant's vendor agreed to pay a rent of Rs.4/- per Cawnie of wet land and Rs.1/- per Cawnie of dry land and that the said arrangement continued till 1903.

6. The defendant contended that the plaintiff represented by the then Trustees filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 1903 before the