U. Arumugham vs The Principal Deity, Arulmighu Subramanyaswami Arulmighu Subramanyaswami Temple

S. Rajeswaran, J.—As the parties in both the appeals are one and the same and both the appeals are directed against the common judgment made in A.S. No. 49 of 2007 and 50 of 2007, both the appeals are being disposed off by this Common Judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their rankings in the suit.

O.S. No. 329 of 2004 (Originally filed in O.S. No. 482 of 1996) was filed by the Principal Diety Subramania Swamy, Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Thirukoil, Thirupparankundram, against one Tmt. Lakshmiammal, for directing her to surrender possession of the suit lands and to pay past and future mesne profits of the income derived from the suit lands.

The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 329 of 2004 is that, the suit schedule properties were originally comprised in T.D. No. 1355 and they were endowed to the plaintiff. The defendant''s husband Ramanatha Mudaliar who was a service holder of ''Seerpatham Thangi Service'' was dismissed from the service by the then Executive Officer with effect from 16-07-1964. The Settlement Tahsildar Minor Enams Unit No. I, Madurai in the proceedings dated 15-05-1970 granted patta for the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff after rejecting the claim for patta for the suit lands made by the said Ramanatha Mudaliar. Against the order of the settlement Tahsildar, the defendant''s husband, Ramanatha Mudaliar preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 394 of 1970 and during the pendency of the appeal, the said Ramanatha Mudaliar passed away. The defendant, Tmt. Lakshmiammal got herself impleaded in C.M.A. No. 394 of 1970 and proseucted the appeal which was also dismissed by the Sub-Court, Madurai on 20-03-1975. Aggrieved by the order dated 20-03-1975, the defendant filed S.T.A.1 of 1979 before this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal on 12-07-1988. Thereafter, the plaintiff made repeated demands, demanding the defendant to surrender possession of the suit lands, but, the defendant did not do so. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 18-12-1990 to the defendant asking her to render true and correct accounts of the income derived from the suit lands and to surrender possession of the lands. Though the notice was received by the defendant on 24-12-1990, she did not choose to send any reply. Hence, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 329 of 2004 for the aforesaid reliefs.

Pending suit, Tmt Lakshmiammal passed away and one Arumugam was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased on 05-11-1999.

The above said Arumugam, as the second defendant, filed a written statement, wherein he stated that the suit lands were endowed by the ancient Karnatic King to the ancestors of the defendants on condition of rendering Seerpatham Thangi Service in the plaintiff temple. The said lands are in possession and enjoyment of the second defendant through testament from the first defendant. It is contended by the second defendant that the Executive Officer of the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. According to him, the office of ''Seerpadam Thangi Service'' in the plaintiff temple is a hereditary one and it consists of four karais. At the time of confirmation of service Inams in the year 1856, one Karuppanna Mudali, forefather of the first defendant''s husband was the first karai; Alagu Mudali, Kuppandi Mudali and Sundara Mudali were managers of the Second, Third and Fourth Karais respectively. An extent of about 73 acres were granted to those four families and Thiru Ramanatha Mudaliar, the husband of the first defendant belonged to the first Karai and the second defendant was the manager of the first Karai. In the first Karai, there are four Pangalis and the said Ramanatha Mudaliar is the first Pangali and he was owning 3/8th share of the lands granted for the first Karai. The ramining three pangalis are owning 5/8 shares of the lands granted to the first Karai.

According to the second defendant, the first defendant''s husband was rendering services till he was affected by leprosy. The then Exeuctive Officer dismissed him from servies illegally. Thereafter, the services were continued along with the proxy of the first defendant. It was admitted that the Settlement Tahsildar issued patta to the plaintiff and both the appeals preferred by the first defendant were dismissed by the Sub-Court and this Court respectively. However, it was stated that in STA. No. 1 of 1979, liberty was given to the first defendant to establish her rights before the Civil Court. It is further stated by the second defendant that the services in the year 1964 was rendered by the wife of Ramanatha Mudaliar and the first defendant was rendering "Seerpatham Thangi Service" to the plaintiff temple from the year 1967 without any break or interruption. The rendition of services was never interrupted except in the years 1965 and 1966, during which period, the first defendant as the wife had to be with her husband.

It is further stated in the written statement that the husband of the first defendant died on 02-11-1970. Even after the death of her husband, the first defendant was rendering services by employing the second defendant''s father Thiru Ukrapandian, who is the second Pangali of the first Karai. After the death of the above said Ukrapandian, the first defendant employed the second defendant for rendering services. The first defendant exeucted a Will in favour of the second defendant bequething ''Sreepatham Thangi Services'' along with Inam properties endowed for the services and a house property she had from the husband. The Will was registered as Document No. 39/94 on 19-08-1994 and the first defendant died on 26-06-1995. Therefore, as the beneficiary/temple is getting uninterrupted services, it is not legally entitled to claim the relief as prayed for in the suit. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

The second defendant also filed an additional written statement wherein he has stated that the plaintiff temple has no locus standi to claim recovery of the suit property. It is further contended that the proper forum for resumption of the Inam Properties is the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer, if the Inamthar failed to render services or failed to make necessary arrangements for the performance of the services. As long as the service holder is rendering services, he shall be entitled to occupy the Inam lands permanently subject to the payment of the assessment fixed in respect of such Inam lands.

The second defendant also filed another additional written statement wherein it is stated that the suit is barred by limitation and it is only the Board of Trustees which was in existence at the time of filing of the suit are competent to initiate legal proceedings.

In the light of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the tiral Court in O.S. No. 329 of 2004.

A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to for recovery of possession?

B) To what other reliefs?

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the other suit in O.S. No. 673 of 2004 filed by the second defendant Arumugam in O.S. No. 329 of 2004.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the second defendant and plaintiff in O.S. No. 673 of 2004.

The second defendant Arumugam, filed O.S. No. 673 of 2004 for declaring that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff, consequently restraining the defendant, which is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 329 of 2004 from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit mentioned properties. It is not in dispute that the suit properties in O.S. No. 329 of 2004 and in O.S. No. 673 of 2004 are one and the same. The case of the second defendant in his suit is that, the suit properties are endowed by ancient Karnatic Kings to the ancestors of the plaintiff on condition of rendering ''Sreepatham Thangi Service'' to the plaintiff deity and the said services are hereditary in nature and it consists of four Karais. One Ramanatha Mudaliar was the manager of the first Karai and he was rendering the said services till 1964. Thereafter, he was affected by leprosy and the services were carried out by his wife Laxmiammal through the second defendant''s father Ukrapandian. The then Executive Officer illegally dismissed Ramanatha Mudaliar from rendering the services. After the demise of Ukrapandian, the second defendant is rendering the services. Though the Settlement Tahsildar issued a patta under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolitation and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30, 1963 in favour of the plaintiff temple and that the appeals were dismissed, the High Court while dismissing STA. No. 1/79, directed the parties to establish their claim before the civil Court. Without considering the order passed in STA. No. 1 of 1979, the Executive Officer filed O.S. No. 329 of 2004 for recovery of possession and the same is pending. It is contended by the second defendant as plaintiff in his suit that as long as the service-holder renders services, he shall be entitled to occupy the land permanently subject to payment of assessment. As the service has been rendered without any interruption, the plaintiff temple is not entitled to ask for possession. Here also, it was referred to by the second defendant, the Will executed by Tmt. Laxmiammal in his favour bequeathing her entire properties including ''Sreepatham Thangi Services, which, she inherited from her husband. As a service holder, the second defendant became absolute owner of the suit properties and he also prescribed title by adverse possession. Hence, the second defendant filed O.S. No. 673 of 2004 for the aforesaid relief.

This was resisted by the temple by filing a written statement wherein it is stated that the possession of the second defendant is not a legal possession as he is not a service holder. It was contended that the second defendant is only a tresspasser and he cannot claim as service holder and at no point of time he was recognised as service holder. It is further stated that the deceased Laxmiammal had no legal rights to bequeath the service lands to the second defendant and the suit for declaration regarding the Inam lands cannot be maintained by a tresspasser. It is further contended that the suit is barred by limitation because the STA. No. 1 of 1979 was disposed off on 12-07-1988, but, the present suit was filed only in the year 2002. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1) Whether the second defendant (plaintiff in O.S. No. 673/04) is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2) Whether the second defendant (plaintiff in O.S. No. 673/04) is entitled for permanent injunction? and

3) To what other reliefs?

A joint memo was filed by both the parties for ordering joint trial and consequently a joint trial was conducted in both the suits.

On the side of the plaintiff temple, the Clerk of the temple was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A6 were marked on their side. On the side of the second defendant, he was examined as DW1 and four other witnesses were examined as DW.2 to DW.5 and Ex.B1 to B81 were marked on their side.

The trial Court after evaluating the evidence let in found that the orignal service holder Thiru.Ramanatha Mudaliar was dismissed from service as is evident from Ex.B.27, which is the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, in which the Ramanatha Mudaliar was also a party. The trial Court after perusing Ex.A3, which is order in STA. No. 1 of 1979 passed by this Court on 12-07-1988, found that it is only Tmt. Laxmiammal who was directed to prove her title to the property through civil Court. But O.S. No. 673 of 2004 was filed on 04-03-2002 only, that too, by Thiru Arumugam. In the meantime, subsequent to the dismissal of STA, the plaintiff temple issued a legal notice calling upon the first defendant to surrender possession and to give accounts. The trial Court found that it was not established that during the relevant period i.e. from 1960 to 1970, ''Sreepatham Thangi Service'' was rendered to the Idol by Ramanatha Mudaliar through his proxy. It was also an admitted fact that no services were rendered in the year 1965 and 1966 even according to the second defendant. The trial Court accepted the Will executed by Laxmiammal in favour of the second defendant, but observed that there is no legal right in her favour on the date of the exeuction of the Will to convey the same. The trial Court has also adverted to Ex.B54 which is the Inam Fair Register (IFR) and found in Column No. 2, that it is stated as "Devadayam", in Column No. 10 "Permanent" and in Column 22, the decision of Inam Commissioner was noted as "confirmed". On that basis, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the idol is the owner of the property and both the defendants have to be termed as tresspassers. Consequently, the trial Court decreed O.S. No. 329 of 2004 as prayed for and dismissed O.S. No. 673 of 2004.

Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 14-12-2006, Thiru. Arumugam filed two appeals in A.S. No. 49 of 2007 and 50 of 2007. The lower appellate Court, after re-evaluating the entire evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly dismissed both the appeals by a common judgment dated 25-10-2007. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 25-10-2007, made in A.S. No. 49 of 2007 and 50 of 2007, the above two second appeals are preferred u/s 100 of CPC.

The following substantial questions of law are raised on behalf of the appellant in the memorandum of Second Appeal:

1) Whether the Courts below failed to note that the pre-existing rights of parties are not wiped out by the introduction of Minor Inams Abolition Act and even in that Act provision has been clearly made only for resumption proceedings?

2) Whether the Courts below failed to note that the beneficiary temple can not seek possession of the classified service grant as grant unto themselves to seek possession of the lands and that will amount to reclassification of the grant the right to which lies only with the Government?

3) Whether the Courts below failed to understand the distinction between debuter grant and service grant and the incidents differently and distinctly envisaged and no over riding is possible?

4) Whether the Courts below failed to note that the service holder can be a lady also and render the same by appointing proxy and the service consists only of engaging men to carry the planquin of the deity?

5) Whether the Courts below failed to note that the Government which confirmed the grant has to be moved under resumption proceedings and that the Government alone can resume the land and re-grant it to proper person only for the same service and also not to the beneficiary; since rider and carrier can not be the same.

6) Whether the Courts below failed to note that the Inam Commissioner confirmed the grant only in favour of the individual subject to the condition of rendition of service and the temple is only a beneficiary.

This Court, on 25-08-2008, ordered notice without admitting the appeals on any substantial question of law. The respondent entered appearance through their counsel.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the entire records and materials available in the record.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the pre-existing rights of the parties are not wiped out by the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 30, 1963 and this aspect has been overlooked by both the Courts below and in such circumstances, the temple cannot seek possession of the classified service grant. If at all the temple is aggrieved, they would have approached only the Government and they cannot maintain the suit before the civil Court. He further submits that the husband of Tmt. Laxmiammal was the service holder and he was dismissed from services by the then Executive Officer illegally and the dismissal order is without jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel, the Executive Officer does not have the power to take disciplinary action/proceedings against the office holders and servants of religious institutions and this power only lies with the Trustees of the temple. Therefore, the dismissal of the services of Thiru Ramanatha Mudaliar is non-est in the eye of law and this aspect has been overlooked by both the Courts below. He relies on the decisions of this Court reported in support of his arguments:

(1) O. Chinnaswamy Thevar and Another Vs. The Executive Officer, Sree Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., and

(2) 2004 (2) MLJ 663 (M. Pitchai v. The Executive Officer, Moongilanai Kamatchiamman Temple)

He further submits that the wife of Ramanatha Mudaliar continued the services through proxy and in such circumstances, the temple has not made out a case for getting possession of the suit lands. He pointed out that no proper issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit by both, the trial Court and the appellate Court, and therefore, the orders are to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded for fresh consideration.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that necessary issues were framed before the trial Court with regard to the prayer sought for in the suit and only on the basis of the evidence, the suit filed by the temple was decreed and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. He further submits that it is not necessary for the temple to approach the Government as in this case it has been clearly established that the grant was made to the temple and not to the service holder. Therefore, the suit is very much maintainable and the orders of both the Courts below need not be interfered with. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the service holder is not a temple servant and therefore, the judgements referred to by the learned Counsel with regard to the powers of the Trustees for taking disciplinary action are not applicable to the present case. Even otherwise he pointed out that neither the original service holoder nor the wife challenged the order of dismissal when they were alive and therefore, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the same at this distance of time. In support of his submissions he relied on a number of decisions and I shall refer to a relevant few at the appropriate place.

In the light of the above facts and submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the sides, I am of the considered view that the following questions of law arise for consideration in the above appeals.

1) Whether the suit filed by the temple is maintainable before the trial Court especially when the pre-existing rights of the parties are not wiped out by Tamil Nadu Act, 30, 1963? and

2) Whether Temple outght to have approached the Government in this connection?

On the above substantial questions of law also, I have heard the learned Counsel and I have carefully considered their submissions.

The case of the temple in O.S. No. 329 of 2004 is that, the suit lands belong to the temple and Ramanatha Mudaliar was a service holder who was dismissed from services with effect from 16-07-1964. From that time onwards he ceased to be a service holder and the temple also obtained patta under the Tamil Nadu Act, 30, 1963 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the original service holder and thereafter by his wife. After the STA filed by the service holder''s wife was dismissed, the temple sought for recovery of possession. Since the possession was not given, the suit was filed. But, it was resisted by Thiru. Arumugam who was impleaded as the legal representative of the service holder''s wife by contending that the service was continued without any interruption, excepting for two years and therefore, the temple is not entitled to seek for recovery of possession. It is the further case of the second defendant in that suit that, the proper forum for resumption of Inam properties is the Court of Revenue Divisional Officer and as long as the service holder rendered services he is entitled to occupy the lands permanently.

The trial Court framed two issues namely:

a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession; and

b) To what other reliefs?

On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court found that patta was granted to the temple which was unsuccessfully challenged by the original service holder and thereafter by his wife. It also found that the second defendant Arumugam does not have any right with regard to the services on the basis of the Will executed by the first defendant Laxmiammal, as at that time itself, there was no subsisting service rights. The order of dismissal was never challenged by either Ramanatha Mudaliar or his wife when they were alive. The Inam Fair Register shows that the properties as "Devadayam" and described as "permanent". The trial Court indeed considered the claim of the second defendant that since it is an Inam granted for rendering services, the plaintiff is not entitled to ask for possession and the temple can only file application before the Revenue Authorities for resumption of lands. After considering the above contention and the evidence let in in this regard, the trial Court found that the STA No. 1 of 1979 was dismissed by this Court on 12-07-1988, but, the deceased first defendant filed the suit O.S. No. 673 of 2004 only 04-03-2002(O.S. No. 212 of 2002). In the meantime, the temple sought for possession and filed O.S. No. 329 of 2004. The trial Court further found that it was not established that "Sreepathm Sevai Service" was rendered to the idol by Ramanatha Mudaliar through proxy. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion that both the first defendant and the second defendant are only tresspasssers.

The lower appellate Court after re-evaluating the evidence framed necessary issues which includes whether the civil Court has jurisdication to grant the relief of recovery of possession to the temple. After re-evaluating the evidence, the first appellate Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court that after his dismissal on 16-07-1964, Ramanatha Mudaliar did not choose to contest the order of dismissal. It also found that after the dismissal of the original service holder on 16-07-1964, it was not established that it was continued by proxy as contended by the defendant. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the contention of the appellant herein that the order of dismissal passed by the then Executive Officer, on 16-07-1964 is non-est in the eye of law as Ramanatha Mudaliar was not the temple servant. The lower appellate Court has also gone into the question of the grant given to the temple or the service holder and found that it was only given to the temple and accordingly the temple is the owner of the lands and it is entitled to seek for recovery of possession. The lower appellate Court has also adverted to the fact that though the STA was dismissed on 12-07-1988 itself, the first defendant Laxmiammal did not choose to asser her rights by filing a civil suit till 20-06-1995 when she passed away. That apart, the present appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 673 of 2004 on 04-03-2002 only, that too, after the temple filed O.S. No. 329 of 2004 on 06-04-1994. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rejected the contention of the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeals.

The lower appellate Court has also gone into the question raised by the appellant that the suit is not maintainable and the temple only should approach the Government for resumption of lands. After considering this question, the lower appellate Court found that the service holder was dismised and thereafter the service was not continued and on that basis, the temple can very well seek for recovery of possession and that relief cannot be granted by the prescribed officer under the Tamil Nadu Act 30, 1963.

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In my considered view, both the Courts below have framed the necessary issues and on the basis of evidence let in came to the right conclusion, which cannot be interfered with, by this Court u/s 100, CPC. Even the susbstantial questions of law that arose for consideration in these appeals were also considered by both the Courts below and it was properly answered in keeping with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

a) In Thirulakshmi Ammal and Executive Officer Vs. The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Project and Others, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the preparation of Inam Register is an important act of the State and the compilation was as a result of elaborate enquiry based upon oral evidence, on the spot enquiry and scrutiny of available accounts and records.

b) In 1996 (1) LW 166 (Subramania Gurukkal (dead) through Muthusubramania Gurukkal and Ors. v. Shri Pattesswaraswami Devasthanam Perur by its Executive Officer and Ors.) the Honourable Supreme Court held that "the description of Inam Fair Register reffering the Inam as "permanent" instead of hereditary is more consistent with the Inam being a service Inam rather than a personal grant burdened with service. It further held that the service holder in possession of the lands cannot set up a new title and they are only derivate holders of the temple.

c) In 1998 (2)LW 188 (Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal v. Smt. T. Parvathi Ammal and Ors.) the Honourable Supreme Court held that the civil Courts jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of the parties is not barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act, 30, 1963.

d) In 1997 (1)LW 614 (P. Athimoola Naicker (died) and 5 Ors. v. Nachiar Devasthanam, through its Executive Officer, Srivilliputhur) a Division Bench of this Court held that the mere fact that mention is made of the two names cannot confer any personal right in the land in question in favour of those persons particularly in view of the specific words used that the names of those persons have been named as persons "in-charge" of performance of kattalai for the temple. It is further held that the use of the word "permanent" in Inam fair Register is more consistent with Inam being Service Inam rather than a personal grant burdened with service and that signifies the grant in favour of the temple.

e) In 1986 (2) MLJ 24 (M. Muthurama Mudaliar (died) and Ors. v. The Idol of Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami at Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami Temple, Pettvaithalai, by its Executive Officer, Thiru C.V. Rajan) this Court held that when the temple granted Ryotwari patta in respect of certain lands to persons for rendering services to the temple, the possession is only permissive and the temple is entitled to seek for possession of the land from that person.

f) In 2002 (1) CTC 425 (M. Natesan and 5 Ors. v. Thiruvanaikoil Arulmighu Sri Jambukeswarar Temple and Akilandeswari Temple, rep. by its Executive Officer and three Ors.) this Court held that the defendants claiming possession of title by adverse possession cannot question the validity of the legal notice of the temple calling upon them to deliver vacant possession.

g) In Sri Ranganathanswamy Etc. Vs. P. Subramanian, the property was enjoyed by a person for conducting pujas in the temple. He claimed that he is entitled to patta. This Court held that as both the warams are conferred only on the temple and the patta has been granted to the temple by the appropriate authoritiy under the Inam Abolition Act, the temple is the absolute owner of the property. In as much as it is a service Inam it can be enjoyed by the pujari as long as he serves as a Pujari in the temple and the pujari has no other right other than the right to enjoy the property.

h) In 2007 (4) KLT 965 (SC) (Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board), the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the properties of deities, temples and devosam Boards required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/Archagas/Shabaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities etc., have usurped and mis-appropriated such properties by stating false claims of ownership or tenancy or adverse possession and such acts of "fences eating the crops" should be dealt with sternly and it is also the duty of the Courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

h) In 1997 (2)LW 159 (Periya Muthu Naicker and Anr. v. Arulmighu Sevantheeswararkoil rep. by its Trustee, Rengasami Naicker, The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur) a Division Bench of this Court observed that in cases 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) representing the temple will not by itself militate against the nature of the grant being of both warams in favour of the institution.

(i) In Palaniappa Pandaram and Others Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and Others, , a Division Bench of this Court held as under:

Heard the learned Counsel on either side. The order of the learned single Judge is as well merited one not warranting any interference. As noticed by the learned single Judge, the statutory Authority has issued a ryotwari patta under a special enactment in favour of the deity. The nature of the grant which has been confirmed also is in favour of the temple. The proceedings by which the patta was issued in favour of the deity was subject to a statutory right of appeal before the concerned Sub-Court constituted as a tribunal and thereafter a further appeal to a Division Bench of this Court and subject to such remedies as noticed above, the other granting patta is rendered final under the statute. Of course, this Court as well as the Apex Court have declared the position that even thereafter, the parties are at liberty to vindicate their respective claims before a civil court, if they so desire. So far as the facts on hand before us are concerned, the order granting patta in 1969 in favour of the deity remains in full force and effect and has not been also challenged. If that be the position, it was most improper on the part of the appellants who claim to be pujaris/service holders and also on the part of the Tahsildar, to order for the transfer of patta in favour of the appellants relying upon a provision which in our view, is totally irrelevant. Section 21 of the Act has relevance only to service inams and the grant of the patta in the name of the deity and for the support of the Pagoda cannot be said to be a service inam. If the inam is really a service inam, Patta would have been granted only in favour of the service holders subject to the condition of performance of the service. It is only in such cases, there is scope for having recourse to Section 21 and not a case like the one concerned before us. That apart, the Regular Tahsildar of the Taluk under the Revenue side has no power to deal with claims under the special enactment in question. The patta granted in favour of the temple cannot be interfered with by the Tahsildar or any of the ordinary revenue authorities exercising their powers under the Revenue Standing Orders and the patta granted under the said Special enactment under a particular provision can, if at all, be interfered or modified only by the statutory authorities provided under the statute itself in the manner and the extent provided therein. The District Revenue Officer has only set right the grave irregularity and the illegality committed by the appellants in connivance, as we are constrained to observe, with the Tahsildar, Perundarai relying upon some irrelevant provisions for surreptitiously getting a transfer of patta in the name of the appellants, thereby denying the temple and the deity the lands and the title to a large extent and very valuable property. We are constrained to observe that the Tahsildar, Perundurai, has not only exceeded his limits, but has passed the order dated 21-01-1994 in gross abuse of his powers.

(j) In Arulmighu Arasadi Karpaga Vinayagar Temple Vs. The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., , a Division Bench of this Court held that wrong framing of issues would not render decree and judgment bad if parties had understood each other''s case for the purpose of adducing evidence and in fact adduced evidence and the Court appreciated such evidence. The Appellate Court instead of remanding the suit on the ground that issues have not been properly framed, should decide the matter on merits in such cases.

In the light of the above legal pronouncements also, I am of the considered view that the appellant has not made out a case u/s 100 CPC to interfere with the findings of the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment of the trial Court. In fact, all the questions including the substantial questions of law raised before this Court have already been considered by both the Courts below and answered properly. In such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the above two appeals. Consequently, both the Appeals are Dismissed. No costs.