Sri Ranganathanswamy Etc. vs P. Subramanian

This Second Appeal has been filed against the reversal decree.

The suit was filed by the plaintiff temple for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession with respect to 88 cents of Nanja lands in

S.No.115/9, Vellikurichi Village, Manamadurai District.

The case of the plaintiff is that the property was an inam in favour of the temple and it is a service inam called Akshayamanyam. The minor inams

(both warams) were granted to the plaintiff temple. The Settlement Tahsildar granted patta under Ex.A.1, after conducting enquiry in accordance

with Inam Abolition Act. This Akshayamanyam was enjoyed by Srinivasa Rangachariar who was Archagar conducting Poojas in the temple. He

contested the matter stating that he was entitled for patta. That contention was rejected and patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1. The appeal to Inam Abolition Tribunal in R.A.422/70 preferred by Srinivasa Rangachariar, was dismissed under Ex.A.2. Thereafter, he

filed an appeal to the High Court in STA.No.78/76 and the High Court also confirmed the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal by order dated

01.11.1978. In the mean while, Srinivasa Rangachariar leased out the property. But the Lessee denied the title of the temple and therefore the

plaintiff temple filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for rejecting the claim made

by the defendant for title by adverse possession over the property. Against that, the appeal was filed by the respondent/defendant, and the

appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Against that judgment, this second appeal has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in case of Inam lands, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the title and only

the Special Tahsildar appointed under the Act is empowered to decide the title over the property and to grant patta. Following the rules framed

under the Act, the Special Tahsildar conducted an enquiry after due publication to all the persons interested in the lands and only thereafter the

matter was disposed of and patta was granted after hearing all the objections. Finally the patta was granted in favour of the temple with respect to

both warams. Therefore, both warams are confirmed on the temple and only ''mel waram'' right was given to Srinivasa Rangachariar, since he was

the Poojari performing Poojas in the temples. Therefore, he is not entitled to patta or he is not the owner of the property. Therefore, any lease

granted by him will not have any effect. Therefore, the respondent herein has no right to have any title by adverse possession.

The learned counsel also referred to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Periya Muthu Naicker and another Vs. Arulmighu

Sevantheeswarar Koil rep. by its Trustee, Rengasami Naicker. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur 1997 (2) LW 159 , in which this Court

has held following the earlier decision of this Court, that ""where the grant is in favour of the temple and permanently made of both warams and

confirmed as long as the temple exists, mere long possession by any one other than the temple or as representing the temple will not by itself

militate against the nature of the grant of both warams in favour of the institution."" Further, (in Paragraph-9,) this Court in a similar circumstance

considered that ""Possession of the transferee cannot be considered to be adverse to the religious endowment from the very beginning and the

succeeding manager''s right to challenge the said transfer could not be held to have been lost."" Therefore, the plea of adverse possession against

the temple is not maintainable.

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he filed an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal for grant of patta in

R.A.No.53/80 for grant of patta and that was remanded back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai who inturn after conducting enquiry has

rejected his plea on 03.08.1999 in S.R.No.1/CE/Minor/94 (30/63) confirming the grant of patta in favour of the temple.

In view of the decision referred to above, inasmuch as both the warams are conferred only on the temple and patta has been granted to the

temple by the appropriate authority under the Inam Abolition Act. Therefore, the temple is the absolute owner of the property. Therfore, the

''lease'' by the service inam holder to a third party such as the defendant herein, does not create any right in favour of such a ''lessee''. Inasmuch as

it is a service inam, it can be enjoyed by the Poojari as long as he serves as a Poojari in the temple; the Poojari has no other right other than the

right to enjoy the property. Hence, the status of the defendant is only a trespasser and not a lessee. Further as long as the temple exists no person

by mere long possession will get any right adverse to the temple. When that be so, the dismissal of the suit by the appellate Court rejecting that

claim of the temple is not sustainable. It is liable to be set aside and hence it is set aside.

The Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored. The appeal is allowed. Considering the facts of the case, parties to bear their

own costs.