IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Mere probate of the Will is not confirmation of title as the probate proceedings are limited to the genuineness of the Will propounded and nothing more.
2. Before claiming adverse possession, the party has to accept the title and ownership of other persons.
3. Probate is judgment in rem, cannot be applied to every case.
4. Claiming title in a negative manner is impermissible.

JUDGMENT

S.M. Subramaniam, J.—The original suit in O.S.No.345 of 1996 was instituted by Arulmighu Thiruvatteeswarar Thirukkoil represented by its Executive Officer against the appellants in the present appeal suit.

2. The appellants in the appeal suit are the defendants in the suit and the respondent in the appeal suit is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the parties in the appeal suit would be referred to as per their ranks in the Trial Court.

4. The facts, as narrated, in the plaint by the respondent/Temple are that the property bearing No.11, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Chennai-5, comprised in Survey No.644/5, belongs to the plaintiff-Devasthanam and there is a Mandapam constructed with the granite stones. In the Mandapam, during the Brahmotsavam festival on the seventh day, when the car festival being conducted, the Utsava Deity will be taken to the Mandapam and it will be kept there till the evening before the same is taken back to the respondent/Temple. The Mandakapadi for that was carried on by one Mr.Venkoba Rao for several years. The said Mr.Venkoba Rao was permitted to run an Elementary School in the Mandapam with the condition that on the date of the festival, everything will be cleared and the Mandakapadi will be done by the said Mr.Venkoba Rao at his expenses. In lieu of the Mandakapadi expenses, the said Mr.Venkoba Rao was permitted to run an Elementary School in the Mandapam. The 1 to 15 Registers contain the suit property and the same was prepared and approved by the Special Tahsildar and finally approved by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department as per the provisions contained in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

5. Originally, the Temple was under the supervision and control of the then Trustees, at the time of permitting the second defendant’s father to use the property. Subsequently, the plaintiff-Temple was brought under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the Trustees were appointed by the Endowment Department. Certain mismanagement of the said Trustees, the Executive Officer was appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 45(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The said Mandapam bears the carvings of different statues and bears the characteristics of the Mandapam and the entire structure was constructed with stones. The plaintiff-Devasthanam is the absolute owner of the property and the revenue records were also in the name of the plaintiff- Devasthanam.

6. The said Mr.Venkoba Rao left a Will bequeathing some of his properties and he has included the Mandapam, which was let out to him on lease and was permitted to run a School, with a view to create a document as if he is the owner. The beneficiaries under the Will, the second defendant and her mother probated the Will as per the orders of this Court in O.P.No.208 of 1975. The plaintiff-Devasthanam is not a party in that proceedings and hence the said order is not binding on the plaintiff-Devasthanam. The second defendant has somehow managed to transfer the patta in her name, in the year 1990 under proceedings dated 06.04.1990. The second defendant’s father has also managed to transfer the Corporation Tax in his name and the abovesaid transfer of patta and Corporation Registers, by the Tahsildar and the Corporation of Chennai, without any notice to the plaintiff- Devasthanam is illegal and ab initio void and opposed to all principles of natural justice.

7. The Temple is the owner or Trustees of the property and their right to recover the property from the defendants has not been extinguished in view of Section 109 of the Act XXII of 1959. The special provisions made under the Act prevails over the general provisions contained in the Limitation Act. The plaintiff’s right to recover possession has not been extinguished prior to 30.09.1951 and hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the