1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

A.S(MD)NO.118 of 2020

The Idol of A/m.Sri Kalyana Venkataramanaswamy,

Thanthonimalai,

represented by its Executive Officer/The Assistant

Commissioner,

Thanthonimalai,

Karur Taluk and District.

:Appellant/Plaintiff

.vs.

1.M.Palanivel

2.P.Kannadasan

3.M.Manju

4.S.Kayalvizhi

5.S.Vijayalakshmi

6.S.Muruganandham

7.J.Saravanan(died)

8.V.Subramani

9.P.Ravi

10.G.Prabavathi

11.P.Subramani

12.V.Sakthivel

13.Minor Sarabeshwaran

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

(minor 13^th appellant represented by his mother and natural

guardian, the fourth respondent herein Kayalvizhi)

14.Manoranjitham

(4^th respondent who is already on record, is recorded as LR of the

deceased 7^th respondent and respondents 13 and 14 are brought on

record as Lrs of the deceased 7^th respondent as per order of this

Court made in C.M.P.(MD)No.2369 and 2371 of 2022 in

A.S(MD)No.118 of 2020, dated 22.3.2022)

:Respondents 1 to 14/Respondents 1 to 14

PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure

Code against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.14 of

2019(PDJ Court O.S.No.27 of 2012),, dated 29.3.2019, on the file of

Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur.

For Appellant :Mr.M.Saravanan

For Respondent-6 :Mr.M.Vallinayagam

Senior Counsel

for M/s.D.Nallathambi

For Respondent-10 :Mr.K.Suresh

For Respondents :No apperance

1 to 5 and 8 to 12

JUDGMENT

*************

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for declaration

and for recovery of possession by the Plaintiff Temple, the present

appeal suit came to be filed.

2.The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

trial Court.

3.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

The suit properties absolutely belong to the Plaintiff temple.

The devadayam Inam was granted by Madurai Thirumalai Naicker

for the service of Thirumalaimatti permanently. The said

Devadayam Inam was confirmed on 29.4.1836 under title Deed

(TD) No.1234. Originally, patta has been granted to the plaintiff

under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams(Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari)Act, 1963 in favour of the temple, which

has been challenged by some of the parties and the matter is

remanded back regarding the portion of the patta granted to an

extent of 4.88 ½ acres out of 6.77 acres to Matcha Naicker. The

said Matcha Naicker appears to have purchased A schedule suit

properties on 6.7.1992 and on 13.2.1968 from Vellaiyappan

Gounder and Katha Naicker respectively. The defendants 3 and 4

seems to have purchased the the above said 3.38 ½ acres on

9.7.2010 from the defendants 1 and 2, who are the son and grand

sons of the deceased Matcha Naicker respectively. The fifth

defendant seems to have purchased an extent of 1 acre and 50

cents on 9.7.2010 from the defendants 1 and 2 which has been

described as 'B' schedule of property. The first defendant claims

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

that his father Matcha Naicker purchased the same on 22.11.1965.

On 1.3.2011, the defendants 3 and 4 sold 'A' schedule property

measuring an extent of 3.38 ½ acres to one Muruganandham the

sixth defendant herein. On 10.3.2011, the fifth defendant sold 'B'

schedule property measuring an extent of 1.50 acres to one

Saravanan, the 7^th defendant herein. During the pendency of the

suit, propeties also sold by defendants 8 and 9. It is the contention

of the temple that the temple is the absolute owner of the suit

properties. The order passed by the Settlement Officer will not

nullify the rights of the temple. Hence the Suit.

4.The written statement filed by first defendant reads as

follows:

The first defendant filed a Written Statenent stating that

after enfo