Temple poramboke land classification affirms temple ownership rights; government cannot claim adverse possession over temple land.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

This Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.2021 passed in O.S No.17 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Karur.

2. The averments contained in the plaint are as follows

The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff namely Arulmighu Balasubramania Swamy Temple, Vennaimalai, represented by its Executive Officer, seeking the relief of a declaration that the suit property belongs to the temple and for a consequential direction to the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property after removing the existing construction and also to pay mesne profits for the occupation of the suit property. Subsequently, by the Proceedings of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (hereinafter called as HR & CE Department), an Executive Officer was appointed and he was conferred with the power to proceed with the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's temple. As per the Settlement Register of the year 1912, it stands in the name of the plaintiff's temple in respect of suit S.F.No. 234/A to an extent of 1.25 Acres, out of 7.13 Acres. U.D.R. register also shows the title of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff's temple. The second defendant is said to have trespassed into the suit property 20 years ago and put up a construction for its office for the purpose of the first defendant. There were no land acquisition proceedings initiated before taking over the suit property by the defendants. The defendants, taking advantage of their position and power, have misused the same and encroached the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession, but they are not amenable and evasive. As per Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, there is no limitation for recovery of possession and there can be no adverse possession. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants on 05/03/2011, regarding the illegal encroachment, due to which, the revenues available to the plaintiff's temple have been lost. As the defendants are in illegal possession and enjoyment of the property, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs as stated above.

3. The defendants, in their written statement, have inter alia stated as follows:-

The second defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations and averments made in the plaint. The contention of the plaintiff that as per 1912 Settlement Register, the suit property belongs to the temple is denied and the same will not confer any title to the plaintiff; the Settlement Register produced by the plaintiff does not disclose that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff temple and it was classified as 'Government poramboke land' under the control of the first defendant herein; the plaintiff has not filed any title document to show that it has exclusive title over the suit property; as per the records produced by the plaintiff, the suit property is classified only as 'poramboke land' and no Vinayagar temple is situated in the said suit property; since the property is a Government poramboke land, the plaintiff cannot make any claim; the allegation of the plaintiff that 20 years ago, all of a sudden, the second defendant trespassed into the suit property and put up the construction for its office, is denied; the suit property is a Government poramboke land and it was under the control and custody of the first defendant; the second def