Continued possession of property can establish legal title, even if conflicting claims exist under the HR & CE Act, granting civil courts jurisdiction to resolve such disputes.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Introductory:

1. This batch of four-second appeals arises from two separate suits, viz., (a) O.S.105 of 1999 and (b) O.S.No.106 of 1999, both instituted by the same plaintiff before the Sub Court, Vedasandur. These suits were earlier instituted before the Sub Court, Dindigul as O.S.No.101 of 1982 and O.S.No.

97 of 1983 respectively.

2. An outline of the disputes involved in the two suits is as follows:

a) The dispute in O.S. 101 of 1982 pertains to the title to certain property at the foothills of Palani Hills, where Pulippani Pathira Ashram is located. The controversy in O.S.97 of 1983 pertains to the right of management of the 'Bogar Samadhi' at the top of the Palani hill, located within the precincts of Dhandayuthapani Swami temple.

b) In both the suits, ancillary reliefs of prohibitory injunction were also sought against the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (hereinafter HR & CE) Department, the defendants in the suits, from interfering either with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property as in O.S.No.101 of 1982 or with the right of management of 'Bogar Samadhi' as in O.S.No.97 of 1983.

3.1 Both the suits came to be tried jointly by the Sub Court, Dindigul, and these suits were dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had not issued a pre-suit statutory notice under Sec. 80 CPC. The matter was taken in appeals by the plaintiff, which overturned the ground of dismissal of the trial Court, and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

3.2 By now, a Sub Court was established in Vedasandur. These suits were remanded to the file of that Court, where they were taken on record as O.S. 105 of 1999 and O.S. 106 of 1999. Both the suits were jointly tried by the learned Sub Judge, Vedasandur and were eventually dismissed vide a decree dated 22.02.2001. Promptly, the plaintiff preferred first appeals to the District Court in A.S.Nos.78 of 2001 and A.S.79 of 2001 respectively against the decree passed in O.S.Nos.105 of 1999 and 106 of 1999. On 23.06.2015, the first appellate Court allowed both the first appeals. The judgement and decree of the first appellate court are challenged in the instant appeals.

3.3 The second appeals are preferred both by the Executive Officer of the Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam, Palani, and the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., who were the 3rd & 2nd defendants in O.S.105 of 1999, and 1st and 2nd defendants in O.S.106 of 1999 respectively. The details are tabulated below:

Original Suit	First Appeal	Second Appeal	Appellant in S.A.
O.S.No.105 of 1999	A.S.No.78 of 2001	S.A.(MD)No.589 of 2015	E.O of the Devasthanam
		S.A.(MD)No.652 of 2022	The Commissioner (HR&CE) Department
O.S.No.106 of 1999	A.S.No.79 of 2001	S.A.(MD)No.590 of 2015	E.O of the Devasthanam,
		S.A.(MD)No.653 of 2022	The Commissioner (HR&CE) Department

Other than the question involving title to the property where the plaintiff's ashram is located and the right of management of Bogar samadhi, the appellants also have raised two other questions: (a) The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the dispute raised in O.S.106 of 1999 (relates to right of management of Bogar Samadhi) is barred under Sec.108 of the H.R. & C.E Act, and (b) the extent of authority which the officials of HR & CE Department assert vis-a-vis the rights claimed by the plaintiff under Sec.63 of the Act. They will be dealt with at appropriate places of this judgement.

Structure of the Judgement

4. Both suits have their distinctive features since the core fact constituting the cause for the respective actions are different. Hence this Court chooses to discuss both the suits separately. Part A will deal with the title suit in O.S. 105/1999, whereas in Part B, the dispute raised in O.S.106/1999 will be considered. It is however, added that this compartmentalisation done for convenience is not straight-jacketed, and there may be occasional references to the suit in one part while considering the case dealt i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document