The court affirmed that the Executive Officer can sue without prior permission, and defendants failed to establish adverse possession against temple property.

JUDGMENT

The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.77 of 2016, dated 14.03.2022, on the file of the District Court, Karur.

2. The first respondent, as plaintiff, has filed the above suit to declare that the plaintiff idol is the absolute owner of the suit property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession, directing the defendants to deliver the actual possession of the suit property after removing the superstructure if any over the suit property and for mesne profits.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in the original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:

(a) The suit property is the property of the plaintiff idol. The old survey number for the suit property as on the year 1863 is paimash No.34 and the survey number as on the year 1899 is 762 and the new T.S.NO.is 924. The title stands in the name of the plaintiff idol and the T.D.No. Is 1290. The suit property is a Devadayam Paditharam Inam, vested with the plaintiff idol originally, which was granted for the benefit of the temple for day to day administration and the same has been vested with the trustees of the plaintiff temple.

(b) The plaintiff came to know that one Kulandaivel Pillai and other have obtained patta under the The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolotion and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The said Kulandaivel Pillai was the adopted son of one Muthukaruppa Pillai, who was the Village Karnam of Inam Karur Village and was also a trustee of the temple from 1884 and a member of the Devasthanam Committee and Executive Member of the said committee till his death. The said Muthukaruppa Pillai had taken possession of the property in the capacity of trustee of the plaintiff temple and as such, he cannot claim any individual, exclusive or private rights. At the time of demise of the said Muthukaruppa Pillai, his adopted son Kulandaivel Pillai was a minor. The natural father of the said Minor Kulandaivel Pillai is T.S.Muthukumarasamy Pillai, who was holding a very important position in the temple and in that capacity, he was assuming possession from Muthukaruppa Pillai till his natural son had grown up. The said Muthukaruppa Pillai had sold the suit property in the capacity of guardian and natural father of Kulandaivel Pillai to the ancestor of the defendants' predecessors-in-title. The defendants or their predecessors in title have some how or other managed to get patta under the Act 33 of1963;

(c) The plaintiff is an Institution governed under the Tamil Nadu H.R.&C.E., Act and as the property is the trust property in favour of the plaintiff idol, nobody is entitled to prescribe any title by adverse possession. When the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition and Convertion into Ryotwari Act (Act 30/1963) came into force, the Government has taken over the above properties. The Settlement Tahsildar has issued a notice to the temple authorities, for which, the temple authorities have given their objections for giving patta to the public. The Settlement Tahsildar, Trichirappalli, in his order dated 09.10.1967 has given patta to various persons under Sections 13 and 8(1) of the Act. The defendants or their predecessors have been given patta under Section 13 relating the superstructure alone and as such, the defendants are entitled to the superstructure in the suit property. The plaintiff temple has obtained patta for the ground in Patta No.21 and the plaintiff has been paying kists to the suit site to the revenue authorities.

(d) The plaintiff Idol issued a notice to the defendants on0