JUDGMENT 1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Erode, and first claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 7 of 1994 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode is the appellant in both the appeals. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 was filed by the respondent for declaration that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 is as follows: 3. The suit properties are Devadaya Inam lands granted to the idol Arulmighu Nageswaraswami for its support, upkeep and maintenance. The grant was confirmed permanently under Tile Deed No.T.D.460 in or about the year 1863 and the grant was in respect of both Kudiwaram and Melwaram. The first defendant/the appellant herein is the son of the second defendant and they claimed to be in possession of the suit property under the patta granted under the Inam Abolition Act, 1963. The suit properties were not sold by the Temple and therefore, the defendants cannot claim any right or title over the suit property and title cannot be conferred on them on the basis of the patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar on abolition of Inams. The ownership of the land vests with the Government and that would not destroy the anterior title of the owners and considering the nature of possession, ryotwari patta cannot be granted and ryotwari patta would be granted in recognition of title. The defendants have no right or tile and they somehow managed to get ryotwari patta from the Settlement Tahsildar and claimed ownership. It is further stated that in respect of lands in Survey No.143/2 Kondalam Village 0.08.0 hectare was acquired by the Government and compensation of Rs.2,999.90 was awarded and the compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The defendants were parties to the said award and they have not challenged the same. It is further stated that in respect of lands in Survey No.143/2 Kondalam Village 0.08.0 hectare was acquired by the Government and compensation of Rs.2,999.90 was awarded and the compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The defendants were parties to the said award and they have not challenged the same. Thereafter an extent of 0.26.0 hectare in R.S. No. 143/1B which was a portion of the suit property was also acquired by the Government and compensation of Rs.10,695/- was awarded and the defendants claimed that compensation and therefore, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1908 before the Sub Court, Erode in L.A.O.P. No. 7 of 1994. As the defendants claimed title to the suit properties, the suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession. 4. The first defendant filed a statement contending that the suit, filed by the Managing Trustee without impleading the other Trustees, is not maintainable. The suit property and larger extent was sold by the Gurukkal of the temple 80 years earlier before coming to force of the Act 30 of 1963 and therefore, the defendants were in possession of the suit property as owners and after coming to force of Inams Abolition Act 30 of 1963, the inam was abolished and the title vested with the Government and after conducting enquiry, ryotwari patta was given to the first defendant by the Government and therefore, the first defendant became the owner of the property. 5. It is further stated that while granting patta under Section 11 r/w Section 8(2)(i)(b) of Act 30 of 1963 in favour of the defendants, a condition was imposed to pay 20 times of fair rent to be fixed by the Tahsildar and that was also paid and ryotwari patta was given after conducting due enquiry and the plaintiff was also party to the proceedings and hence, it is not open to the plaintiff to challenge the ryotwari patta. It is further stated that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the Settlement Tahsildar after conducting enquiry issued patta in favour of the defendants and the same can be challenged only before the Tribunal constituted under the Act 30 of 1963 and civil court has no jurisdiction. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction? 3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? The following additional issue was also framed: Whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 6. Before the trail court on the side of the plaintiff, 1 witness was examined and on the side of the defendants the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and 4 exhibits were marked on the side of the plaintiff and 21 exhibits were marked on the side of the defendants. The second defendant was set ex-parte. 7. The trial court tried issues 1 and 2 holding that the suit properties were originally inam lands and in respect of those lands both the warams i.e Melwaram and Kudiwaram were with the plaintiff temple and that was also accepted by both the parties. The defendants claimed that the second defendant Periyaswami Gounder purchased the suit property from one Subramaniam Gurukkal and others 90 years before and also paid kists and thereafter after coming to force the Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 patta was granted under Ex.P.1 to the second defendant and the second defendant also paid the amount mentioned in that. But the defendants failed to prove the oral sale and therefore, the oral sale effected by the defendants was not proved. But the defendants failed to prove the oral sale and therefore, the oral sale effected by the defendants was not proved. The trial court further held that though Ex.B.4 to B.21 kist receipts would prove that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, they cannot claim adverse possession as the temple is the owner of the property and adverse possession cannot be claimed in respect of the temple properties and as per Ex.B.1, the suit property was given as Devadaya Inam to plaintiff temple and the plaintiff temple was holding both the warams viz.melwaram and kudiwaram and the patta granted in favour of the first defendant cannot be relied upon by the defendants to claim title and the same is subject to the jurisdiction of the civil court and as per Ex.A.5 patta was granted in favour of the temple and the defendants cannot claim title to the suit property on the basis of the patta and the property belongs to the temple as the temple was holding both kudiwaran and melwaram and answered the issues 1 and 2 against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. 8. The additional issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal v. Smt. T.Parvathi Ammal and Others 1998-2-L.W. 188 and Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Srinivasan and 6 Others v. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattavaithalai Tiruchirappalli District by its Executive Officer at Pettavaithalai Devasthana and 5 Others 1998-2-L.W. 189 : (1998) 2 MLJ 722 the Civil Court has got jurisdiction and therefore, the suit is maintainable before the civil court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 255 of 1998 on the file of the District Court, Erode and later it was withdrawn and transferred to this court and re-numbered as A.S. No. 357 of 2002. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 255 of 1998 on the file of the District Court, Erode and later it was withdrawn and transferred to this court and re-numbered as A.S. No. 357 of 2002. A portion of the suit property in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government and compensation of Rs.10695/- was paid and as the plaintiff and the first defendant claimed right over the said compensation, dispute between the first defendant and the plaintiff was referred under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act to the Sub Court, Erode and the same was entertained in L.A.O.P. No.7 of 1994 and the learned Sub Judge based on the decree passed in O.S. No. 570 of 1997 held that the temple is entitled to the compensation of Rs.10695/- and the first claimant/appellant herein is not entitled to claim that compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 476 of 1999. 9. Mr. D. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals submitted that though the ground was taken in the grounds of appeal that civil court has not jurisdiction, once patta was granted by the Settlement Tahsildar as per the provisions of Act 30 of 1963, having regard to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported inSir-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal v. Smt. T. Parvathi Ammal and Others (supra) and Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Srinivasan and 6 Others v. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattavaithalai Tiruchirappalli District by its Executive Officer at Pettavaithalai Devasthana and 5 Others (supra), the contention of the appellant that civil court has no jurisdiction cannot be entertained. However, the learned counsel submitted that the trial court erred in holding that the appellant has no tile or right over the property without properly appreciating the various exhibits filed by the appellant to prove that he was in possession of the property for more than 60 years that also would also probabilize the case of the appellant that his predecessors in title purchased the property under oral sale from the Gurukkal of the Temple who was managing the property. He therefore submitted that the trial court ought to have held that the first defendant became the owner of the property by virtue of oral sale and perfected title by adverse possession for more than 60 years and on that basis ought to have dismissed the suit filed by the respondent. 10. On the basis of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant the following point for consideration arises in these appeals: 1. Whether the trail court was right in holding that the appellant was not the owner of the property as he failed to prove the oral sale without properly appreciating Ex.B.4 to Ex.B.21? 11. As stated supra, it is admitted by both the parties that the suit properties were originally Devadhaya Inam Lands and both the warams were with the temple therefore, the temple was admittedly the owner of the properties. The specific case of the appellant is that father of the second defendant namely, Palaniappa Gounder purchased the suit property and larger extent from Subramaniam Gurukkal under a oral sale and thereafter, they were paying Kist. The trial court considered these aspects and held that though the defendants claimed to be in possession of the property for the past 90 years, they were able to produce some receipts from 1947 and therefore, the oral sale of the suit properties 90 years prior to the coming into force of the Act 30 of 1963, cannot be accepted. The trial court also held that when the defendants are owners and the property belongs to temple, they cannot plead adverse possession against the temple and relied upon the judgment reported in (1996) 1 MLJ 63 in respect of those claims and held that the defendants cannot claim any right by adverse possession. 12. The trial court also considered Ex.B.1 and held that the land was given to the temple as Devedhaya Inamm and the defendants failed to prove the oral sale and the defendants cannot claim title of the suit property on the basis of the patta granted in his favour and Ex.A.3 would also prove that the plaintiff temple is in possession of the property and held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. 13. 13. According to me, the trial court considered the various documents and the oral evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants failed to prove the oral sale and his possession and the plaintiff was admittedly the grantee and was holding both Kudiwaram and Melwaram and patta was also granted in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff proved his title to the suit property and decreed the suit. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial court. Once the temple is the owner of the property the temple is entitled to recovery of possession from the defendants. I therefore, answer the issue No.1 in favour of the respondents holding that the appellant failed to prove the oral sale and his possession as owner and admittedly the property was given as Devadhaya Inam to the plaintiff temple and recognizing the same, the plaintiff was given patta under Ex.A.5 and therefore, the plaintiff proved his title to the suit property and the trial court has rightly decreed the suit and the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession. 14. Once the plaintiff is declared to be the owner of the suit properties, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the compensation in respect of part of the land acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu that was rightly appreciated by the court below and awarded the compensation to the respondents. 15. In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the decree of the trial court are confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.