JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and delivery of possession with past and future mesne profits. The suit survey No.71/1 is measuring 2 acres and 20 cents of dry land comprised in old paimash No.136 in Koothampoondi Village. The ancestors of the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the same for about 40 years and subsequently, they divided the property among themselves, under which each of them got 73 cents. Veedhai got the southern most 73 cents and after his death, the sons divided the same in themselves, in which Muthian got 38 cents and Poongan got the remaining 37 cents. Munian did not have any male issue, but only a daughter by name Muniammal. By a registered sale deed, Munian conveyed his property to Muniammal. By a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1941, she had conveyed the property to Poongan, father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. During 1971, the 2nd defendant with the assistance of his henchmen attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs by interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 2nd defendant purporting to have taken a lease of the entire S.No.71/7 with an extent of 2 acres and 20 cents from the 1st defendant. There was also exchange of notices and the 1st defendant did not give any reply. The 2nd defendant had taken forcible possession of the property setting up title in favour of the 1st defendant and purporting to be a lessee. The suit property is capable of yielding 15 bags of paddy and the defendants are also liable to deliver possession with past and future profits. Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statement and contended that the suit property never belonged to the plaintiffs or their predecessors. They also denied the case of the plaintiffs that the property was in their possession and enjoyment for over 80 years and after partition the plaintiffs are enjoying the same. The plaintiffs preferred proceedings under Sec.145 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukoilur and it was dismissed. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is also barred by time. The 2nd defendant is cultivating the property as a lessee of the temple and as such, not liable to pay any mesne profits. The plaintiffs preferred proceedings under Sec.145 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukoilur and it was dismissed. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is also barred by time. The 2nd defendant is cultivating the property as a lessee of the temple and as such, not liable to pay any mesne profits. The trial Court framed 6 issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs and aggrieved against this, the 1st defendant preferred A.S. No.166 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Villupuram and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the substantial question of law as follows: “Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the patta granted in the settlement proceedings is conclusive on the question of title?” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the suit property measuring 73 cents comprised in R.S.71/7 belonged to their family and they continued to be in possession and enjoyment. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the title deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs to establish their title. Ex.A-1 dated 6.2.1928 is a registered sale deed executed by Munian in favour of Muniammal for Rs.100 and she in turn, under Ex.A-2 had conveyed the property in favour of Poongan for Rs.100. The plaintiffs have also filed kist receipts under Exs.A-8 and A-9 series to establish their possession and enjoyment. However, the 2nd defendant claiming himself to be a lessee under the 1st defendant temple trespassed into the property and, as such, the suit is laid for declaration as well as delivery of possession and other reliefs. 6. The defendants resisted the suit stating that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors were in enjoyment of the property. In fact, the plaintiffs preferred a complaint under Sec.145 of Criminal Procedure Code and it was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukoilur. 6. The defendants resisted the suit stating that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors were in enjoyment of the property. In fact, the plaintiffs preferred a complaint under Sec.145 of Criminal Procedure Code and it was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukoilur. The property is in the possession of one Lakshmanan, who has taken possession of the property from the 1st defendant temple under lease. The suit property belongs to Devasthanam and Ex.B-1 is the Chitta Adangal Book issued to the temple. In short, the patta for the suit survey number was given to the temple and based upon which the right is claimed by the defendants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs mainly contended that the lower appellate Court was not right in holding that the patta granted in the settlement proceedings in favour of the temple authorities is conclusive on the question of title. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence as well as the documents, whereas the lower appellate Court misdirected itself based upon the patta granted to the temple. It is settled position of law that mere granting of patta will not give title to the property. Moreover, patta issued by the revenue authorities may be an evidence of title, but that cannot be an evidence of possession. Except the patta, there is no other document in favour of the defendants. It is also settled position of law that even though the revenue authorities have granted patta in favour of a particular person, it is always open to a Civil Court to go into the question again and find out as to who is entitled to claim declaration relating to the suit property. 8. It is also settled position of law that even though the revenue authorities have granted patta in favour of a particular person, it is always open to a Civil Court to go into the question again and find out as to who is entitled to claim declaration relating to the suit property. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Srinivasan and others v. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Tiruchirapallai District by its Executive Officer at Pettavaithalai Devasthanam and others, (1998)1 C.T.C. 630 , wherein it is clearly stated that “Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain suits for declaration of title and injunction - Such suit is not barred by reason of grant of patta under provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not totally and completely ousted or barred in respect of adjudication of claims of title, questions or issues which requires to be decided for implementing ryotwari settlements in areas governed by legislation abolishing minor inams”. This decision is applicable to the case on hand. 9. This Court also in Ramalingam v. Idol of Sri Thayumanasamy at Sri Thayumanasamy Devasthanam, (1998)3 C.T.C. 665 following Full Bench decision of this Court has held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of suit. 10. It has also been held in T.K.Ramanujam Kavirayar (died) and others v. Sri-la-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avergal and others, 1987 T.L.N.J. 91, that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of title is not ousted by the provisions of the Minor Inams Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is evidently clear that the civil Court is entitled to go into the question irrespective of the patta granted to any particular party. The overwhelming documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs clearly established that the plaintiffs and their predecessors alone have dealt with the property as their own. On the other hand, except the patta issued in favour of the 1st defendant, there is no other record. There is no reasonable explanation on the part of the defendants relating to Exs.A-1 and A-2, title deeds, which have come into existence in 1928 and 1941 when parties would not have thought of any dispute at a later point of time. There is no reasonable explanation on the part of the defendants relating to Exs.A-1 and A-2, title deeds, which have come into existence in 1928 and 1941 when parties would not have thought of any dispute at a later point of time. Considering the documentary evidence, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have positively established that they have got title to the property and in view of the trespass committed by the 2nd defendant claiming himself to be a lessee under the 1st defendant, naturally the plaintiffs would be entitled to get recovery of possession. The lower appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the legal position and simply dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs based upon the patta granted in favour of the temple. There is erroneous application of law and hence, an interference is called for. 12. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.2650 of 1993 is closed. Appeal allowed.