JUDGMENT 1. These two second appeals have been focused by the plaintiff, inveighing the common judgment and decrees dated 03.02.1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.Nos.25, 26 and 96 of 1988 in confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 21.01.1988 passed by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu in O.S.Nos.481 of 1982 and 348 of 1987. 2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus: a] (i) The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.481 of 1982 seeking the following reliefs: - to pass a judgment and decree as against the defendants - to declare that the plaintiff is absolutely and exclusively entitled to the suit property. - to grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives and servants from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property - to direct the defendants to pay costs of the suit. (extracted as such) as against the D1-Temple, viz., Sri Padalatri Narasimhaswamy Devasthanam Singaperumal Koil and D2- Govindan on the main ground that the suit property measuring an extent of 72 cents in survey number 7/1, is a minor inam, which got vested with the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963. (ii) D1-Devasthanam was collecting the Melvaram while the Kudivaram was possessed by the plaintiff and his ancestors. On the notified date of the Act, the plaintiff alone was entitled to the Kudivaram in respect of the schedule mentioned property as patta was subsequently granted in favour of the plaintiff by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963. As such, the temple authority by making false representation collected Melvaram from the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit. b] Whereas D1 resisted the suit by contending thus: The suit property is a ryotwari land owned by D1-Devasthanam and it is paying kist to the Government. The allegations in the plaint that the suit property was a minor inam, which allegedly got vested with the plaintiff is specifically denied. In fact D1-Devasthanam auctioned the suit property for lease purpose during the fasli years 1383 84. As such, the plaintiff happened to be the lessee under D1-Devasthanam and paid lease rents also for the fasli years 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386 and 1389. In fact D1-Devasthanam auctioned the suit property for lease purpose during the fasli years 1383 84. As such, the plaintiff happened to be the lessee under D1-Devasthanam and paid lease rents also for the fasli years 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386 and 1389. Subsequently, he failed to pay the rent. There cannot be any patta in favour of the plaintiff-Singaram in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, D1 prayed for the dismissal of the suit. c] One other suit in O.S.No.348 of 1987 was filed by the said Devasthanam as plaintiff as against the said Singaram the defendant therein for recovery of the lease rent of Rs.1175.25 with 9% interest in respect of the aforesaid suit property. d] The said Singaram, the defendant therein, who is the appellant herein resisted the suit on the ground that instricto sensu, there was no landlord/tenant relationship between the Devasthanam and himself and he was not liable to pay any amount and virtually he reiterated his stand in O.S.No.481 of 1982. e] D2- Govindan in O.S.No.481 of 1982 remained exparte before the trial court and hence he was set exparte. f] Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court and joint trial was conducted, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On the defendant's side one Raghunathan examined himself as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B16 were marked. g] Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.481 of 1982 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.348 of 1987, however, without awarding interest. h] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the said Singaram preferred two appeals in A.S.Nos.25 and 26 of 1988 as against the decrees passed; whereas D1Devasthanam filed one other appeal in A.S.No.96 of 1988 claiming interest. i] All the three appeals were dismissed. 3. Challenging and impugning the common judgment and decrees of the first appellate court, the said Singaram has preferred these two second appeals on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether the lower appellate court erred in holding that the temple is the owner of the suit property when admittedly the suit property is a minor Inam notified under Act the Tamil Nadu Act No.30/1963? b. Whether the suit framed by the plaintiff is maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is denied by the defendant and therefore ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and for consequential benefits? c. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is vitiated by its failure to consider relevant evidence on record? [extracted as such] 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned Government Advocate (CS) for the respondent in both the second appeals. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would pyramid her argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: Ex.A1, the patta bespeaks and betoken that in stricto sensu the plaintiff-Singaram happens to be the absolute owner of the suit property and erroneously he was paying rent as though he was a tenant under the Devasthanam. As per the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963], he became the owner of the suit property. Both the fora below failed to take note of the said fact and simply dismissed the claim of Singaram and correspondingly awarded recovery of rent in favour of the Devasthanam, warranting interference in second appeals. 6. Whereas the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would pyramid his argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) Both the courts below correctly decided the lis based on voluminous documents filed by the Devasthanam warranting no interference in these second appeals. (ii) A1- the patta does not even bear any specific date and it is a fraudulently brought about document at the instance of the plaintiff-Singaram. (iii) No patta was issued under the Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963. (iv) Recovery of lease amount was ordered correctly by the courts below. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the second appeals. 7. The following substantial questions of law are formulated: 1. Whether Ex.A1 patta could be construed as the patta issued under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 in recognition of the alleged status of Singaram as the person holding Kudivaram right and whether it would enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to claim it as a Ryotwari patta issued in favour of him under the Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963. 2. 2. Whether ignoring Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, Singaram could plead as though he was not the tenant under Devasthanam but owner by himself in respect of the suit property? 8. A mere running of the eye over the records would enable me to furnish the following factual matrix. D1-Devasthanam claims that it is the owner of the suit property. Exs.B1 to B16 marked on the side of the temple in O.S.No.481 of 1982 would connote and denote, exemplify and demonstrate that the suit property was leased out in an auction for lease strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act for the temple properties and in that auction, the plaintiff-Singaram the appellant herein participated in the proceedings and since he was a successful bidder relating to the lease auctioned, he was allowed to cultivate the property as a tenant and he was also admittedly paying the rent. 9. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act: "116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession– No tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given." In this connection, I would also like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 584 [State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. D. Raghukul Pershad (dead) by LRs. and others]. Certain excerpts from it would run thus: "7. The law is settled by this Court in D. Satyanarayana vs. P. Jagadish that the tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord cannot deny the landlord's title however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly surrendered possession by surrender to his landlord. Although, there are some exceptions to this general rule, none of the exceptions have been established by the appellants in this case. Although, there are some exceptions to this general rule, none of the exceptions have been established by the appellants in this case. Hence, the appellants who were the tenants of the respondents will have to surrender possession to the respondents before they can challenge the title of the respondents. 8. In the plaint as framed by the respondents in the present case, the relief of eviction against the appellants was not based on the title of the respondents. Mr. M.L. Varma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that on a reading of the plaint, it will appear that the respondents had claimed to be owners of the land. We find that although an averment has been made in the plaint that the respondents were the owners of the suit land, no relief for declaration of title as such has been claimed by the respondents. Only the relief of eviction was sought in the plaint on the ground that the lease had not been renewed after 1986 and the rent had not been paid since 1986. In our considered opinion, therefore, this being not a suit of declaration of title and recovery of possession but only a suit for eviction, the trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court were not called upon to decide the question of title." However, in this case, absolutely, there is nothing to exemplify and demonstrate that he became the owner of the temple property. 10. I would like to extract here under the relevant portion of the Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963: "8. Grant of Ryotwari pattas – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the Kudiwaran in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Grant of Ryotwari pattas – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the Kudiwaran in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), [and in the Tamil Nadu Transferred Territory] incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1959), the following provisions shall apply in case of lands in an iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity - (i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive possession of such land - (a) for a continuous period of sixty years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land; (b) for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta if he pays as consideration to the Government in such manner and in such number of instalments as may be prescribed an amount equal to twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the schedule and the land revenue due on such land; (ii) in the case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Explanation – for the purpose of this sub-section, "land revenue" means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess. (3) Any arrear of the amount due from any person under clause (i) (b) of sub section (2) shall be recovered together with such interest as may be prescribed as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Explanation – for the purpose of this sub-section, "land revenue" means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess. (3) Any arrear of the amount due from any person under clause (i) (b) of sub section (2) shall be recovered together with such interest as may be prescribed as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (4) The Government shall [within such period as may be prescribed] pay to the institution concerned in one lumpsum the amount specified in clause (i) (b) of subsection (2) and such payment shall be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (5) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on condition of rendering service to religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of ryotwari patta under sub section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 21. 9. Grant of ryotwari patta in cases not covered by Section 8 –(1) Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, wherein respect of an inam land no person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 8, and the land vests in the Government, the persons specified below shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land in the following order of preference:- (i) firstly, a person who had been personally cultivating such land for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960; (ii) secondly, if there is no such person as is referred to in clause (i), then, a person who had been lawfully admitted into possession of such land on or after the 27th day of September 1955 and who had been personally cultivating such land ever since; and (iii) thirdly, if there is no such person as is referred to in clauses (i) and (ii), then, a person who had been personally cultivating that land on the 26th day of September 1955 and for a period of twelve years immediately before that date: Provided that no person shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of any land under clause (i) or (iii) of this sub-section if such person has voluntarily abandoned or relinquished his rights in respect of such land on or before the date of the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 11. Explanation I. - In this section 'person' includes an inamdar. Explanation II. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a person is said to personally cultivate a land when he contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of that land. (2) Among the persons specified in sub-section (1) those specified in clause (i) of that sub-section shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta to the exclusion of the persons specified in clauses (ii) and (iii) of that sub-section and those specified in clause (ii) of that subsection shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta to the exclusion of the persons specified in clause (iii) of that sub-section. (3) Any ryotwari patta granted under this section shall take effect on and from the date of the grant of such patta. 11. Determination of lands in respect of which anyu person is entitled to ryotwari patta – (1) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), inquire into the claims of any person for a ryotwari patta under this Act in respect of any inam land and decide in respect of which land the claim should be allowed. Determination of lands in respect of which anyu person is entitled to ryotwari patta – (1) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), inquire into the claims of any person for a ryotwari patta under this Act in respect of any inam land and decide in respect of which land the claim should be allowed. (2)(a) Before holding the enquiry under sub-section (1), the Assistant Settlement Officer shall give notice in the prescribed manner to the inamdar and to the Tahsildar of the taluk or Deputy Tahsildar of the sub-taluk in which the inam land is situated; and (i) if the person is in occupation of the land is not the inamdar, to the occupant; (ii) if the inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindu religious institution or for service therein, to the Commissioner appointed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), or to an officer specified by the said Commissioner in this behalf; (iii) if the inam is a wakf within the meaning of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Central Act XXIX of 1954), to the Board of Wakfs constituted under that Act, or to an officer specified by the said Board in this behalf; [(iv) to such other persons as may be specified in the rules made by the Government in this behalf]' (b) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall also publish in the prescribed manner in the village the notice referred to in clause (a) and after giving the parties who appear before him an opportunity to be heard and to adduce their evidence, give his decision. (3) Against a decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer under sub-section (2), the Government may, within one year from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within three months of the said date, appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding two months for the filing of any such appeal. Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it appears to the Tribunal that the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact." A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedent as well as the Notification issued there under would clearly convey and portray that if at all the officer concerned under the act is satisfied, then he could issue ryotwari patta in favour of the occupier of the ryotwari land is concerned. But, in this case, no such document has been issued at all under the special enactment. 11. As such, the contention of the plaintiff remains only his ipse dixit. Over and above that the averments are turned out to be nothing but a load of baloney fraught with falsity. 12. A mere perusal of Ex.A1, the patta issued under the Patta passbook Act is bereft of even the date of issuance of the patta and it is common knowledge that such patta itself will not confer title. 13. Patta would not constitute title is the trite proposition, which got exemplified in the following decisions of this court: (i) 1998 (I) CTC 630 in Srinivasan and six others Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattavaithalai, Tiruchirapally District by its Executive Officer at Pattavaithalai Devasthanam and five others. (ii) 1973(1) MLJ 44 [Velayudham Pillai vs. Sandhosa Nadar and others] (iii) 1995(1) MLJ 426 [Kuppuswami Nainar vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others] (iv) 2008(7) MLJ 1183 [Venkatachalam (died) and others vs. Rajammal and others] (v) 2009(3) CTC 493 R.Pannerselvam vs. A. Subramanian and another] Not to put too fine a point on it that both the fora below au fait with law and au courant with facts and also considering the fact that there was supine admission on the part of the plaintiff-Singaram that he was the tenant under the D1-Devasthanam, dismissed the claim of the tenant, warranting no interference in these second appeals. 14. In respect of the second appeal focused as against the judgments emerged in respect of O.S.No.348 of 1987 is concerned, I would like to highlight and spotlight that such second appeal is untenable in view of S.102 of Code of the Civil Procedure, which is extracted here under for ready reference: "102. 14. In respect of the second appeal focused as against the judgments emerged in respect of O.S.No.348 of 1987 is concerned, I would like to highlight and spotlight that such second appeal is untenable in view of S.102 of Code of the Civil Procedure, which is extracted here under for ready reference: "102. No second appeal in certain cases – No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees." 15. The said O.S.No.348 of 1987 itself was only for recovery of a sum of Rs.1175.25 ps and as such the second appeal in S.A. No. 1055 of 1990 as against the said suit is dismissed. 16. In the result, I could see no merit in these second appeals and accordingly, both are dismissed. No costs.