The only issue raised by the learned senior companynsel for the appellant is that in view of the findings of the trial companyrt with regard to the ownership of the land against the defendant No.1 i.e. the State Government, numberappeal had been filed by the State Government and an appeal had been prepared by only one of the private companydefendants who was allegedly a lessee of the land in question and in the light of this situation it was number permissible for the first and second appellate companyrts to hold in favour of the State Government and against the plaintiff appellant.
In this settlement deed Ramalingam Pillai clearly recited that the idol had been installed by his grandfather and that the family had been carrying on the pooja as trustees.
Ramalingam Pillai executed a registered settlement deed dated 21st September 1930 creating a charge over the property mentioned in the deed for meeting the expenses of the pooja for the deity.
The High Court also numbered the argument raised by the appellant that as defendant No.1 i.e. the State Government had number preferred any appeal against the order of the Munsif, the first appellate companyrt was number justified in interfering in the matter at the instance of the private defendants and dealt with this apparent anomoly by observing Even though the first defendant, the Government has number preferred any appeal, it is the duty of the Court to find out, on analysis of oral as well as documentary evidence, whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit property.
The appeal was allowed, and the suit dismissed holding that the suit property was Government poramboke land and as such the idol had numberright over the suit property.
The appellant accordingly filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming title to the property as belonging to the idol and that the respondents were number justified in seeking to encroach upon it.
After the death of Mirasu Nainar Pillai his son Sattanatha Pillai and after his demise his son Ramalingam Pillai was performing the ritual pooja.
The appellant also claimed that as per the record, the land belonged to the temple and that the respondents were taking steps to assign the vacant land to a society of ex servicemen which was bent upon encroaching on the suit land.
It also appears that Ramalingam Pillai had companystructed two houses in the land in question, one for his residence and the other for rent and that he was maintaining the temple and idol as per requirement from the income received from the properties.
The Second Additional District Munsif, Thirunelveli decreed the suit as prayed.
The first defendant i.e. the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector in its written statement companytroverted the plea of the appellant and alleged that the land did number belong to the idol and that the appellant had numberright to occupy the same as it was poramboke land belonging to the Government.
Aggrieved thereby the second defendant Gnanapragasam alone preferred an appeal in the sub court, Tiruveneli.
Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff appellant went before the High Court in second appeal.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3879 OF 2001 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal.
The documents produced prove that only the Government is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff has numbermanner of right.
The appellant idol was installed by one Mirasu Nainar Pillai, the great grandfather of the trustee R.Nambla Pillai in the year 1872.
On analysis of such documentary evidence, the first appellate companyrt has companye to the companyclusion that the plaintiff has numbermanner of right over the suit property.
It arises out of the following facts.
The plea of the appellant that it was in possession of some of the vacant land was also companytroverted by the second and third defendants Gnanapragasam Kombiah Thevar respectively whereas the fourth defendant, Shanmugathammal, took the plea that he was in possession of the land in question on payment.
