The Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide the question of title is not barred by reason of the grant of patta under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.

J U D G M E N T

The Second Appeal is arising out of judgement and decree passed by First Appellate Court confirming an order of rejection of the plaint. The rd appellants and 3 respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the respondents 1 and 2 in O.S.No.187 of nd nd

2012. The 2 respondent herein, who was arrayed as 2 defendant in the suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellants and 3^rd respondent herein preferred an appeal and the First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the appellants are before this Court.

rd

2. According to the appellants and 3 respondent/plaintiffs, the suit property was given to their predecessors-in-interest as a personal grant and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit inam lands as such. After notification under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963, the husband of 1^st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 5 and 3^rd respondent herein and grandfather of the appellants 6 and 7 namely A.N.Katchabeswara Gurukkal claimed patta for the suit lands under Minor Inams Abolition Act proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer by order dated 10.08.2011 granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of 1^st respondent/1^st defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu in Inam C.M.A.No.10 of 2011 and the same was pending on the date of filing of the present plaint. It was claimed by the appellants that dehors the patta granted in favour of 1^st respondent, the question of title could be agitated before the Civil Court. The 2^nd respondent taking advantage of the dispute between the appellants and 1^st respondent had committed trespass into the suit lands and constructed unauthorised construction in the suit properties. Hence, the above suit was filed seeking declaration of plaintiffs' (appellants and 3^rd respondent) title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of suit properties after removal of construction made by the 2^nd defendant.

3. The 2^nd respondent herein filed I.A.No.2008 of 2012 seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the appellants and 3^rd respondent/plaintiffs. In his affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was contended by the 2^nd respondent that no document had been produced by the appellants to substantiate their claim of personal grant in favour of their predecessors-in-

interest. It was also claimed that 2^nd appellant herein pending proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, executed a document in favour of 1^st respondent on 16.05.2007 surrendering the suit property in favour of Temple admitting its title. Therefore, the appellants were estopped from claiming title and maintaining the present suit. The 2^nd respondent also claimed that it was a lawful tenant of the suit properties under 1^st respondent in whose favour patta was granted in inam settlement proceedings. The 2^nd respondent also contended that the present suit is hit by principles of res judicata and barred by limitation.

4. The Trial Court on enquiry held that appellants having executed a Surrender Deed in favour of 1^st respondent cannot come before the Court seeking title over the suit properties and allowed the application. Hence, plaint filed by the appellants and 3^rd respondent was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection of plaint, the appellants and 3^rd respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram. The First Appellate Court on consideration of exhibits marked on behalf of either side, came to the conclusion that suit properties were not personal properties of the plaintiffs as claimed by them but the suit properties were service inam lands attached to the servi