A court cannot conduct mini trials during the initial stage of plaint numbering; it must accept the plaint or reject it according to law.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the return order, dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Karur.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she is the owner of the suit property in S.F.No.569 to an extent of 1 acre in Aathur Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District. The petitioner has purchased the suit property by virtue of sale deed, dated 22.11.1996 from one Chinnammal, the mother of the plaintiff and from her brother, Kandasamy and became absolute owner of the same. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, in the year 2010, the first respondent / first defendant, trustee of the Temple filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Karur for declaration of title and recovery of possession against several persons. The suit was dismissed for default on 05.01.2013. Later, it was restored, in which no notice was served on the plaintiff and other defendants and they were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 12.01.2015.

3. Pursuant to the ex parte decree, the second respondent / second defendant filed the execution petition in E.P.No.9 of 2017 and only on receipt of the notice in the execution proceedings, the petitioner came to know about the passing of ex parte decree against her. Hence, she filed an application to condone the delay in filing the set aside petition in I.A.No.28 of 2019 before the Principal District Court, Karur and the said application was dismissed and delivery was ordered. Some of the defendants in the suit filed civil revision petition in C.R.P(MD)No.2100 of 2023 and the same was allowed. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit to go under the shelter of the first respondent / first defendant as a tenant and hence, she was constrained to file a suit before the Sub Court, Karur for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. However, the Court below without numbering the plaint frequently returning the same for various reasons. Hence, she was constrained to file the above revision for setting aside the return order, dated 29.11.2024 and for a direction to direct the Trial Court to number the above suit.

4. On perusal of the return order, dated 20.11.2024, the Trial Court has observed that in the civil revision petition in C.R.P(MD)No.2100 of 2023, dated 18.07.2024, this Court has directed the present revision petitioner / plaintiff and other petitioners in the civil revision petition to vacate and hand over the suit property to the Temple on or before 31.12.2024. Therefore, returned the plaint stating that the suit is not maintainable.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that since the revision petitioner has not filed any affidavit to go under the shelter of the first respondent / first defendant as a tenant, she was constrained to file a suit for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. His further submission is that the suit property was a service inam granted to Thirumalai Katti Uliyam by Chola King to ancestors of one Kuppan and one Marudan, who were at service during the time of Inam Commissioner proceedings in 1863 and it was rent free. The extent of S.F.No.569 was 11.61 acres at the time of settlement Thasildar proceedings. Both varams belonged to the service providers and the Temple was not in possession at any point of time. The great grandfather of the Chinnammal one Nachiappa Gounder @ Nachi Maniykarar was paying Kandhayam to the Temple during and his family was tilling and toiling in the land and thereby, doing agricultural activities themselves. During the settlement Tahsilar III, Tiruchirapalli Camp proceedings in the year 1967, Nachaippa Gounder's grandson Karuppana Gounder