JUDGMENT 1. The Concurrent Judgments and Decrees passed in Original Suit No. 595 of 1993 by the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and in Appeal Suit No. 21 of 1999 by the Additional Sub-Court, Tenkasi are being challenged in the present Second Appeal. 2. The Appellant herein as Plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 595 of 1993 on the file of the Trial Court praying to declare that the Suit property is the absolute property of the Plaintiff and also to restrain the Defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyments of the Plaintiff by means of perpetual injunction, wherein the present Respondents have been shown as Defendants 2 to 7. 3. In the Plaint, it is averred that the Suit property is originally belonged to one Kader Mohideen and he purchased the same from one Kanivoimozhi under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1955 and thereafter he sold the Suit property in favour of Muthiah Mooppanar by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972. The said Muthiah Moopanar is the representative of the Plaintiff. The Suit property has been purchased for the benefit of the Plaintiff and in which the Defendants are not having any manner of right, title and interest and since the Defendants have made a false claim over the Suit property by way of disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff, the present Suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the Plaint. 4. In the Written Statement filed on the side of the Second Defendant, it is averred that the present Suit is barred as per Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. The land in question has been purchased by a Religious Institution by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 21.03.1972. The concerned authorities have taken the land as per provision of Section 20(a) of the Land Reforms Act and therefore the Plaintiff is not having any right, title and interest over the Suit property. The Plaintiff has possessed of excess land. Under the said circumstances, the land in question has been acquired. The representatives of the Plaintiff have appeared for enquiry. Under the said circumstances, they are estopped from disputing the right of the Defendants. The Suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff should have preferred an Appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority and there is no merit in the Suit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The representatives of the Plaintiff have appeared for enquiry. Under the said circumstances, they are estopped from disputing the right of the Defendants. The Suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff should have preferred an Appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority and there is no merit in the Suit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the Suit. Against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the Plaintiff as Appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No. 21 of 1999 on the file of the First Appellate Court. 6. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the Appeal and thereby confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Against the concurrent Judgments and Decrees passed by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Plaintiff as Appellant. 7. At the time of admitting the present Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration: (a) Whether the two Courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit and the Civil Suit is not maintainable? (b) Whether the two Courts below, on the facts of the case acted with illegality in holding that the Plaintiff is a Public Religious Institution? (c) When the holding of the transferee is below the ceiling limit prescribed, the transfer in question, is hit by Section 20-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act? 8. Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the rival pleadings putforth on either side. 9. It is stated on the side of the Plaintiff that the Suit property is originally belonged to one Kanivoimozhi and she sold the same in favour of one Kader Mohideen Rowther by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 29.04.1955 and the said Kader Mohideen Rowther has sold the same in favour of one Muthiah Mooppannar, who is none other than the representative of the Plaintiff by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972 and since then the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. 10. The defence putforth on the side of the contesting Defendants is that the Plaintiff is a Religious Institution and since the Plaintiff has contravened the provision of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and since the Plaintiff has contravened the said provision of law as per Section 20-A of the said Act, the concerned authorities are empowered to acquire the land and further as per Section 77 of the said Act, the Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit and the only remedy which is available to the Plaintiff is to file an Appeal before the concerned Tribunal and since the present Suit is not legally maintainable and since no Appeal has been preferred before the concerned Tribunal, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The Courts below after considering the rival submissions made on either side, have uniformly found that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit and further the Plaintiff is a Religious Institution and it has contravened the provision of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Under the said circumstances, the following points have to be analysed in the present Second Appeal: (a) Whether the Plaintiff is a Religious Institution and it contravenes the provision of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961? (b) Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit? 12. Under the said circumstances, the following points have to be analysed in the present Second Appeal: (a) Whether the Plaintiff is a Religious Institution and it contravenes the provision of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961? (b) Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit? 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff has sparingly contended that the Suit property is originally belonged to Kanivoimozhi Ammal and she sold the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1955 in favour of Kader Mohideen Rowther and he subsequently sold the Suit property in favour of representative of the Plaintiff by name Muthiah Mooppanar and the Plaintiff is neither Religious Trust nor Religious Institution and further the Plaintiff is not having any excess land and the authorities have proceeded on the basis that the Plaintiff is a Religious Trust and it contravenes the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 and finally acquired the land under Section 20-A of the said Act is applicable and the Courts below without considering the fact that the Plaintiff is neither Religious Institution nor Religious Trust and also without considering that the provisions of Sections 77 & 78 are not applicable to the present case, have erroneously non-suited the Plaintiff and therefore the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be interfered with. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 has contended that the Plaintiff is a Religious Trust and since it has contravened the provision of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, proper action has been taken under Section 20(2) of the said Act and final order has been passed by way of taking over the land in question and against the order passed by the authorities, the only remedy available to the Plaintiff is to file an Appeal before the concerned Tribunal and further as per Section 77 of the said Act, the Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit and the Courts below after considering all the contentions raised on either side, have rightly non-suited the Plaintiff and therefore the concurrent Judgments and Decrees passed by the Courts below do not warrant interference. 14. As narrated earlier, the Suit property is originally belonged to Kanivoimozhi Ammal and she parted with the same by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 29.04.1955, which has been marked as Ex. A. 1. The alienee by name Kader Mohideen Rowther has subsequently sold the same in favour of the representative of the Plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972, which has been marked as Ex. A. 2. Therefore by virtue of Ex. A. 2, the Plaintiff has had acquired right, title and interest over the Suit property. 15. The preliminary point involves in the present case is as to whether the Plaintiff is a Religious Trust or Religious Institution ? In the short cause title of the Plaint, it is stated that Kadayanallur Town Senaiyar Thalaivar Samuthayam. Since in the short cause title of the Plaint, it has been stated as mentioned supra, no one can come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is a Religious Institution or Religious Trust. Nowhere in the Plaint, it has been specifically stated that the Plaintiff is a Religious Trust or Religious Institution. In fact the Plaintiff is nothing, but a separate community. Since the Plaintiff is neither a Religious Institution nor Religious Trust, the first and foremost contention raised on the side of the contesting Defendants cannot be accepted. 16. Now the Court has to look into the legal aspects involved in the present case. 17. The authorities concerned have proceeded on the basis of Sections 2(2), 20-A & 22 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Section 2(2) of the said Act reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such Religious Institution of Religious Trust of a public nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) shall acquire by any means whatsoever any land after the date of the commencement of this Act”. 18. A plain reading of the said Section would go to show that after enactment of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, Religious Institution or Religious Trust of public nature is debarred from acquiring any landed property. 19. 18. A plain reading of the said Section would go to show that after enactment of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, Religious Institution or Religious Trust of public nature is debarred from acquiring any landed property. 19. Section 20-A of the said Act reads follows: “Penalty for future acquisition in contravention of certain provisions.— (1) Any acquisition of any land made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 2, of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1), sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of sub-section (1), clause (b) of sub-section (3-B) and of sub-section (3-C) of Section 5, shall be null and void, and any land which is so acquired shall, as a penalty for such contravention, be deemed to have been transferred to the Government with effect from the date of such acquisition on a declaration made by Authorized Officer within whose jurisdiction such land or the major part thereof is situated. The Authorized Officer shall record in writing the reasons for such declaration”. 20. A mere reading of Section 20-A of the said Act would clearly reveal that if there is any contravention as mentioned in Section 2(2) of the said Act, the authorities are empowered to take a proper action as per Section 20-A of the said Act. 21. In the instant case, it has already been pointed out that the Plaintiff is neither a Religious Institution nor Religious Trust. Therefore initiation of proceedings itself by the authorities concerned under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 is totally illegal. 22. It is an admitted fact that by virtue of Ex. B. 3, the land in question has been acquired. 23. The Courts below have concurrently non-suited the Plaintiff mainly on the grounds that the Plaintiff has contravened the provisions of Section 2(2) of the said Act and further the Civil Court is not having jurisdiction by virtue of Section 77 of the said Act. It has already been discussed and ultimately found that the Plaintiff is neither Religious Institution nor Religious Trust and therefore, the concurrent findings given by the Courts below to the effect that the Plaintiff has contravened the provisions of Section 2(2) of the said Act is totally illegal. 24. It has already been discussed and ultimately found that the Plaintiff is neither Religious Institution nor Religious Trust and therefore, the concurrent findings given by the Courts below to the effect that the Plaintiff has contravened the provisions of Section 2(2) of the said Act is totally illegal. 24. On the side of the contesting defendants, it is urged that as per provision of Section 77 of the said Act, Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit. 25. Section 77 of the said Act reads as follows: “Jurisdiction and powers of Land Tribunals.— (1) Each Land Tribunal shall have such jurisdiction over such area as the Government may, by Notification, from time to time determine. (2) If any question is referred by the Authorized Officer to the Land Tribunal of its decision under Sections 11(2), 16(3)(a) (iv) or 51(3) the Land Tribunal shall decide such question. (3) Every Land Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908)”. 26. From a cursory reading of the said Section, it is clear that the exclusive jurisdiction of Land Tribunal has been mentioned only in cases of nature mentioned in the said Section. To put it in short, the proceedings taken under Section 20-A of the said Act is not found place within the ambit of Section 77 of the said Act. 27. Now the Court has to look into Section 78 of the said Act and the same reads as follows: “Appeal to Land Tribunal.— (1) Against any decision of the Authorised Officer under Sections 9(2)(b), 10(3), (4), (5), 16(3)(a)(iii), 20, 22, 50(4), 51(1), (2), 52, 61(3)(b) or 102(2)(b) the Government may within ninety days from the date of the decision and any person aggrieved by, such decision may within thirty days from the date of such decision, Appeal to the Land Tribunal. (2) The Land Tribunal may admit an Appeal presented after the expiration of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), but not exceeding thirty days, if it is satisfied that the party concerned had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period. (2) The Land Tribunal may admit an Appeal presented after the expiration of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), but not exceeding thirty days, if it is satisfied that the party concerned had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period. (3) On receipt of an Appeal under sub-section (1), the Land Tribunal, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, shall— (a) determine a case finally; (b) remand a case; (c) take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken by the Authorized Officer”. 28. Section 78 of the said Act deals with Appeal to Land Tribunal, wherein also Section 20-A is not found place. 29. It has already been pointed out that the authorities concerned have proceeded on the basis of Section 20-A by way of holding that the Plaintiff is a Religious Trust. In the instant case, absolutely there is no evidence for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that the people of the Plaintiff are professing a particular religion. Further the Plaint is not proceeded on the basis to the effect that the Plaintiff is a Religious Trust. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff is neither a Religious Institution nor a Trust, the entire approach made by the authorities concerned is totally erroneous. 30. The Courts below without considering the status of the Plaintiff and also without considering the applicability of Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, have erroneously non-suited the Plaintiff on the basis of the reasons mentioned supra and therefore, the concurrent findings given by the Courts below for non-suiting the Plaintiff are really perverse. 31. The Plaintiff has purchased the Suit property by virtue of Ex. A. 2. Since the Plaintiff has purchased the Suit property by virtue of Ex. A. 2 and since the Plaintiff is neither a Religious Institution nor Religious Trust and since the authorities concerned have unnecessarily taken the proceedings, this Court is of the view that the Civil Court is having power so as to grant the reliefs sought for in the Plaint. Under the said circumstances, the substantial questions of law settled in the present Second Appeal are really having substance and altogether the present Second Appeal deserves to be allowed. 32. Under the said circumstances, the substantial questions of law settled in the present Second Appeal are really having substance and altogether the present Second Appeal deserves to be allowed. 32. In fine, this Second Appeal is allowed without costs and the concurrent Judgments and Decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and Original Suit No. 595 of 1993 is decreed as prayed for without costs as prayed for.