JUDGMENT : N. Authinathan, J. The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 14.08.1996, passed in A.S No.75 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the judgement and decree dated 09.03.1992, passed in O.S.No.1593 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit. 3. The idol of Sri Neelavaneeswarar, represented by its Executive Officer, Thirupangaly has filed a suit in O.S.No.1593 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Trichirappalli. The case of the plaintiff is that Thirupangaly Village is an estate as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 48 and it was converted into a ryotwari village under the provisions of the said Act. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant and his family members owned a house lying to the south of the suit property. They were archakas of the plaintiff temple. As the owner of the adjacent house, they claimed patta to the suit property. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The second defendant claimed that he had purchased the suit property from the first defendant. However, the first defendant himself has no right, title and interest in the suit property at any point of time. The second defendant encroached on the suit property and put up structures thereon. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title, after removing the superstructure put up on the suit property. 4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement. According to the second defendant, the suit property is far away from the temple precincts. The first defendant, as the owner of the suit property, sold the same to the second defendant under a sale deed (Ex.B.5), dated 24.11.1980. After purchase, the second defendant put up constructions. The suit property has been classified as 'occupied natham' and therefore, the second defendant alone has got title to the suit property. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Before the trial court, the Executive Officer of the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff has filed a copy of proceedings of the Director of Settlement (Ex.A.2), dated 25.11.1967. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove its title to the suit property. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Before the trial court, the Executive Officer of the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff has filed a copy of proceedings of the Director of Settlement (Ex.A.2), dated 25.11.1967. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove its title to the suit property. The appeal preferred in A.S.No.75 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 6. Notice of motion was sent to the respondents. Learned counsel Mr. Illanchezian appeared for the respondents. This Court formulated the following substantial question of law and admitted the appeal. "Whether the Courts below are right in overlooking the statutory provision viz. Section 77 of the Tamil nadu HR & CE Act, when the document filed in this case and the description of property given in the plaint which has not been controverted to clearly shows that the suit property is adjacent and adjoining and in fact is in the precinct of the temple ?" 7. Learned counsel on both sides argued on the said substantial question of law. 8. It is not in dispute that Thirupangaly village was an 'Estate' under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 48 and it was converted into a ryotwari village under the provisions of the said Act. The plaintiff idol claims that it is the absolute owner of the suit property. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the property is situated within the precincts of the temple and it is adjacent to the temple tank and that therefore, it should be treated as 'temple property'. He relied on Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, to submit that the suit property belongs to the temple. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, supported the judgments of the Courts below. According to him, the plaintiff has not produced any document of title to show that suit properties belong to them. According to him, the case does not involve any substantial question of law. 11. The suit property has been described in the plaint as follows : "Thiruchirapalli District, Lalgudi Taluk, Mannachanallur Thirupagalli village S.F.No.899/9. According to him, the plaintiff has not produced any document of title to show that suit properties belong to them. According to him, the case does not involve any substantial question of law. 11. The suit property has been described in the plaint as follows : "Thiruchirapalli District, Lalgudi Taluk, Mannachanallur Thirupagalli village S.F.No.899/9. West Cart road, south of agnitheertham tank; north of Neelaganda Gurukkal house; east of Gopura vasal measuring east west 75' and north south 70' feet". Section 77 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 reads thus : "77 : Transfer of lands appurtenant to or adjoining religious institutions prohibited except in special cases :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 34, no trustee of a religious institution shall lease or mortgage with possession or grant a licence for the occupation of- (a) any land belonging to the religious institution which is appurtenant to or adjoins the religious institution, or any sacred tank, well, spring or water-course, appurtenant to the religious institution whether situated within or outside in precincts thereof, or (b) any space within or outside the prakarams, mantapams, Courtyards or corridors of the religious institution; Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall apply to the leasing or licensing of any such land or space for the purpose of providing amenities to pilgrims or of vending flowers or other articles used for worship or of holding for specified periods, fairs or exhibitions during festivals connected with the religious institution. (2) Any lease or mortgage with possession or licence in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) shall be null and void. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or (the commissioner) may sanction the lease or mortgage with possession or granting of a licence for the occupation of any such land or space as is mentioned in sub-section (1) and situated outside the precincts of a religious institution for any purpose other than a purpose mentioned in a proviso to sub-section (1)." A plain reading of the section would make it clear that it prohibits a trustee of a temple from leasing out or mortgaging any land appurtenant or adjoining to the religious institution. In the case at hand, we are concerned with the claim of the plaintiff's temple as to its title to the suit property. In the case at hand, we are concerned with the claim of the plaintiff's temple as to its title to the suit property. Section 77 of the Act does not in any way advance the case of the plaintiff. Declaration of title cannot be granted on the basis of the above said Section. It is well-settled that the plaintiff can succeed in a suit for declaration only on the basis of valid title to the suit property. 12. In Sri Kalugachalamurthiswami v. The Panchayat Board ( 1962 (2) MLJ 372 ), a Division Bench has held as follows : "The streets, roads and open space surrounding a temple cannot be called appurtenant to the temple within the meaning of section 18 (4) and (5) of the Madras Estates Land (Abolition) and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and as such, those streets and road will vest in the Government under section 3(b) of the Act. The existence of balipeetams in the streets cannot make the streets appurtenances to the temple." In the light of the said decision, it cannot be said that the suit property is part of temple property merely on the ground that it is adjacent to the temple. 13. It is seen from Ex.A.2, dated 25.11.1967, that initially an extent of 23.84 acre was classified as temple poromboke during the settlement. A perusal of the proceedings of the Director of Settlement, Chennai/Ex.A.2 would reveal that a request has been made to the Director of Settlement to treat a portion of land in Sy.No.899/1 (pro) as natham poromboke. However, the request was rejected. Aggrieved by the order, the first defendant's family preferred a revision to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has remitted the matter to the file of Director of Settlement for fresh enquiry and disposal after giving due notice to the Devasthanam and objected to the request of the revision petitioner. In pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue, the Director of Settlement has conducted an enquiry, after due notice. After considering the matter afresh, by his order dated 10-3-1969, came to the conclusion that the suit property was in enjoyment of the first defendant's family. The plaintiff was represented by its advocate before the Director of Settlement. In pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue, the Director of Settlement has conducted an enquiry, after due notice. After considering the matter afresh, by his order dated 10-3-1969, came to the conclusion that the suit property was in enjoyment of the first defendant's family. The plaintiff was represented by its advocate before the Director of Settlement. As per the order, the portion (suit property) claimed by the first defendant's family was ordered to be deleted from Sy.No.899/1 (pro) (Neelavaneswarar temple poromboke) and ordered to be included in Sy.No.899/1 (pro). The Assistant Settlement Officer was requested to prepare the necessary memorandum and give effect to the order. Ex.B.9 is the copy of the Settlement Register. It shows that the property comprised in Sy.No.899/1 is a sarkar poromboke. It is also mentioned in coloum No.11 as 'Natham sathura kinaru'. There is no indication in the settlement register that the property belongs to the plaintiff. 14. A close reading of the recitals of the mortgage deed/Ex.B.3 would reveal that the suit land had been in enjoyment of the first defendant's family members. This document is of the year 1911 and the executants are the archakas of the plaintiff temple. It came into existence long prior to the order of the Director of Settlement/Ex.B.8. At that point of time, they had no motive to defraud the temple by including a false recital as regards the ownership of the property. The suit property has been dealt with by the family members of the first defendant as could be seen from the partition deed/Ex.B.4, 06.11.1974. In this document, they have described as they are their ancestral property. 15. Ex.B.8 order has been passed, after hearing the counsel for the temple. It is not in dispute the order in Ex.B.8 attained finality. The property in question has been classified as 'natham'. It is not temple poromboke. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to point out any material to show that the suit property belongs to plaintiff idol. The courts below, based on materials available on record, have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish its title to the suit property. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. There is no substance in the grievance of the appellant regarding the judgment of the Courts below. The courts below, based on materials available on record, have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish its title to the suit property. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. There is no substance in the grievance of the appellant regarding the judgment of the Courts below. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.