In the result, the appellants suit was decreed on the 14th February, 1955.
This suit No.
The learned trial Judge examined the whole evidence and came to the companyclusion that the grant of the Inam was a personal Inam, and that it was number a grant in favour of the religious endowment within the meaning of the Act.
Respondents 1 to 3 who have been appointed as trustees of the said temple by respondent No.
On these pleadings, four substantive issues were framed by the learned trial Judge they were whether the grant of the Inam was a personal Inam whether the grant of the Inam was a religious endowment whether plaintiffs have title to the suit properties and whether plaintiffs have acquired title by prescription ?
The appellants in the present litigation claimed a declaration about their title to the properties in suit and a permanent injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3, who claimed to be the trustees of an alleged Pachai Kandai Udayavar Temple at Eragudi, from interfering with their possession of the same.
Respondent No.
It is against this decision that the appellants have companye to this Court by special leave.
4 is the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, L9Sup.
129 of 1955 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Tiruchirappalli, challenging the companyrectness of the said decree.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 2, 1959 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
XIX of 1951 hereinafter called the Act , in the Court of the District Munsif at Turaiyur.
Notice of this application was served on the appellants and they pleaded their own title to the properties.
On the first two issues, oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties.
Respondents 1 to 3 preferred an appeal No.
That is how the first two issues were answered in favour of the appellants.
Subrahmanyam, J., who heard this appeal, held that the original grant had been made in favour of the Temple.
The said properties were alienated from time to time, and as a result of the last alienation, the appellants became entitled to them.
Their case was that the said properties had been granted to the Pachai Kandai Udayavar Temple and formed part of its properties.
The appellants averred that the properties companyered by the grant bad been granted in Inam to the original grantee burdened with the obligation of performing certain services in a Matam.
In companysequence, the learned trial Judge also held that the appellants had proved their title to the suit properties.
Respondents 1 to 3 resisted this suit and companytended that the properties in suit had number been granted to the predecessor of Pachai Kandai Udayavar as alleged by the appellants.
This numberice was served on witness Raju lyer and Amrithalinga lyer, Chinnasamy Iyer, and Rangaraja Reddiar, who were performing the worship and acting as de facto managers of the temple.
This decision was challenged by respondents 2 3 before the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
Before this order companyld be executed and possession delivered to respondents 1 to 3, the appellants instituted the present suit.
The Magistrate, however, over ruled the claim made by the appellants and directed them to deliver possession of the properties to respondents 1 to 3.
801 of 1963.
The original grantdeeds are number available but at the time of the settlement of the Inams in the sixties of the last century, Inam title deeds were issued in favour of the family of Pachai Kandai Udayavar.
The alternative plea made by the appellants that they had acquired title to the properties by prescription, was also upheld by the trial Judge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4, obtained a certificate from him that the properties in question belonged to the Temple and on the basis of the said certificate, they had filed an application before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area under s. 87 of the Act for possession.
CI/66 9 Tiruchirappalli, and he has been impleaded because he has purported to appoint respondents 1 to 3 as trustees of the said alleged Temple on the 7th March, 1951.
4, they claimed that they were entitled to the possession of the properties.
103 of 1954 was instituted on the 13th September, 1954, under S. 87 of the, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act No.
As trustees appointed by respondent No.
According to the appellants, the said lands had been granted in Inam to the ancestor of one Ambalathadum Pachai Kandai Udayavar by the Carnatic Rulers before the advent of the British power in India.
The properties involved in the suit companysist of agricultural lands situated in Eragudi village, Musiri taluk, Tiruchirappalli district.
V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants.
The appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 3, therefore, failed and was dismissed with companyts on March 29, 1957.
774 of 1957.
Raghaviah and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The present appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave and it arises from a suit filed by the appellants against four respondents.
