JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal has been filed as against the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the defendants thereby, dismissing the suit filed for recovery of possession. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:- The suit property an extent of 18.5 acres in survey No.104 in Kurumbur Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Thanjavur District was dealt under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as Act 26 of 1948). In the said land there is a temple, namely Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple. During settlement proceedings, the suit property was shown as temple Poromboke land. The plaintiff’s predecessor were managing the temple situated in the said land. Though the entire survey number in the Kurumbur Village was taken over by the Government under the Act 26 of 1948, temple situated in survey No.104 has not been affected by the said Act. The predecessor of the plaintiff, who was managing the temple, without any reasons whatsoever, sold an extent of 1.5 acres of the suit property to the third defendant. The vendor of the third defendant never had title to the property. Therefore, the said sale deed dated 02.05.1955 is not valid in the eye of law. Based on the said invalid sale deed, in the year 1993, the third defendant has put up a illegal construction in the suit property. The plaintiff is a hereditary trustee and he is managing the temple and its properties. Hence, he filed the suit for recovery of possession. 4. The third defendant, who claimed to have purchased an extent of 1.5 acres in the year 1955 took a stand to the effect that the suit property was never belonged to the temple and never classified as temple poromboke in the revenue records and except the place, where the temple is situated, the other places do not belong to the temple. The temple never had control over the suit property. If the temple had title to the properties, the same would have been reflected in the settlement proceedings. The temple never had control over the suit property. If the temple had title to the properties, the same would have been reflected in the settlement proceedings. He further submitted that no patta has been issued in the name of the temple, whereas the third defendant, since the date of purchase is in possession and enjoyment of the property and he has also obtained patta in his name. It is his further contention that the suit has been filed with false allegations only when the defendants have questioned the plaintiff about the release of the land belonging to the temple. The plaintiff is not the hereditary trustee of the temple. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- (1) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file a suit on behalf of the Supramania Swami temple? (2) Whether the suit property belongs to the temple? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession? (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 6. On the basis of the pleadings, on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked and on the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked and Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked. 7. Based on the evidence and materials, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff / Temple, as against which, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having found that the suit property is a poromboke land allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the suit property is a common poromboke land and not belonged to the Temple and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that since the plaintiff and the third defendant had no title over the property as it is a Government Poromboke land and the temple has no right to retrieve the possession from the third defendant. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal is filed. 8. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal is filed. 8. While admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:- (1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in interpreting and appreciating the entries in 'A' Register (Ex.A8) thereby, concluding that the land is Government poromboke and not temple poromboke in spite of entry in Column No.12 of Ex.A8 and recitals in Ex.B2 disclosing that the suit property is temple poromboke. (2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in refusing the relief of recovery of possession on the ground that the appellant-Temple is not the owner despite its name find place in Column No.12 of Ex.A8. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the First Appellate Court having found that the property is classified as temple poromboke in Ex.A8, without any evidence has come to the conclusion that the property is only a Government poromboke and both sides have no title to the property and have no right to recover the property. It is the contention that such finding of the First Appellate Court is against the very documents and without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. It is his further contention that D.W.1 namely, the third defendant, who stated to have had no title on the basis of the sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff's predecessor, himself admitted that the property was a temple property and the temple was managed by Zameenthars, namely the plaintiff's family prior to the Act 26 of 1948. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that ‘A’ Register/Ex.A8 clearly indicates that the property is classified as temple property. The evidence of D.W.1 coupled with Ex.A8, would also clearly provides the fact that the entire suit property is belonged to the Temple and any sale in favour of the third party is not valid. Having held that the sale in favour of the third property is not valid, the First Appellate Court ought not to have confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. Having held that the sale in favour of the third property is not valid, the First Appellate Court ought not to have confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: "(i) Janki vs. Raja Muthiah and another [ 2020 (5) CTC 669 ]; (ii)Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through LR vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and others [ 2019 (1) CWC 495 ] (iii)S.Sridhar and the State of Tamil Nadu [W.P.Nos. 17248 of 2013 etc] (iv)Ananthula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy and others [ 2008 (6) CTC 237 ]" 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the plaintiff though claimed to be a hereditary trustee has not established the title to the property, if really the temple owned the property during settlement proceedings, patta could not have been issued in the name of the temple under the Act 26 of 1948. However, no patta has been produced, whereas only in Ex.A8, 'A' Register maintained by the Revenue Department, the property has been shown as Temple property. Merely on the basis of such entries in 'A' Register, the plaintiff cannot establish the title to the property, whereas the third defendant has obtained patta, as per G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971 beyond the scope of the Act 26 of 1948, which is also marked as Ex.B2. Hence, his contentions that though the First Appellate Court has held that the third defendant is also not entitled to the property, since he is in possession and the property is declared to be the Government Promboke land, without impleading the Government or the Temple the suit is not maintainable. 13. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgment: "(i) M.S.Krishnan and 26 others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the District Collector and others [2001-2-L.W.-723];" 14. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents and also perused the entire materials. 15. Both the Courts below held that the alleged purchase by the third defendant from the plaintiff's predecessor under Ex.B1 is not valid in the eye of law. Such finding has not been challenged by the respondents. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents and also perused the entire materials. 15. Both the Courts below held that the alleged purchase by the third defendant from the plaintiff's predecessor under Ex.B1 is not valid in the eye of law. Such finding has not been challenged by the respondents. Similarly, the Courts below have negatived the contentions of the third defendant that he is entitled to the property and he was given patta separately in the year 1955 as per G.O.Ms.No.1300 dated 30.04.1971. The findings that the patta is not valid and the respondents have not acquired any title based on the alleged sale deed of the year 1955 were also not challenged by the respondents. 16. Be that as it may, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property is all along belong to the Temple, originally and his predecessor in title were managing the Temple even after the introduction of the Act 26 of 1948. Though the properties of the Village were vested with the Government, since there were temples in the property, the same was not affected the plaintiff's family while managing the Temple as hereditary trustee. The plaintiff also being hereditary trustee is managing the Temple. In this regard, the evidence of D.W.1 and oral evidences of other witnesses, when scanned, clearly indicate that the temple was managed not only by the plaintiff's predecessor in title but presently by the plaintiff. This fact has been clearly established on records by oral evidence of the parties and the contesting defendants. 17. Though no title deed was placed, the fact remains that Ex.A8, 'A' Register relied upon by the plaintiff clearly refers that the entire extent of 18.5 acres of property is classified as Temple land. This fact has been clearly established on records by oral evidence of the parties and the contesting defendants. 17. Though no title deed was placed, the fact remains that Ex.A8, 'A' Register relied upon by the plaintiff clearly refers that the entire extent of 18.5 acres of property is classified as Temple land. The trial Court has infact analyzed this Ex.A8 and recorded the fact that in 'A' Register in Column Nos.11 and 12, it is categorically mentioned that the property belongs to the Temple, whereas the First Appellate Court had found that the third defendant has no title to the property and his purchase did not convey any title, however held that since the property is the Government property merely because of the fact that there are entries in the 'A' Register that there is a Temple, it cannot be a ground to hold that the entire property belonged to the temple. 18. Whereas it is not the case of the defendants that the suit property is a poromboke land. He claimed that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's predecessor. In written statement, it is stated that the since the plaintiff released 2 acres of the land belonging to the temple and the same was questioned by the defendants, the present suit came to be filed as against the defendants. The above said contradictory statements make it very clear that the property in fact belongs to the Temple. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the defendants that the property is a Government land. When the parties have not even pleaded as to the nature of the property, the First Appellate Court merely on the basis of the patta issued in favour of the third defendant has come to the conclusion that the property is the Government poromboke land. It is to be noted that patta in Ex.B2 was obtained in the year 1971 by virtue of the Government Order referred to above beyond the scope of the Act 26 of 1948. 19. It is to be noted that Ex.A8, is a Descriptive Memoir of No.55, Kurumbur Village of Aranthangi Taluk of Thanjavur District and it is the settlement proceedings. When the same is carefully scanned by this Court, it is made very clear that the entire 18.5 acres of the land is shown as the Temple property. 19. It is to be noted that Ex.A8, is a Descriptive Memoir of No.55, Kurumbur Village of Aranthangi Taluk of Thanjavur District and it is the settlement proceedings. When the same is carefully scanned by this Court, it is made very clear that the entire 18.5 acres of the land is shown as the Temple property. Ex.A8, clearly indicates that in the year of settlement (Fasli, 1369) the entire suit land was owned by the Temple as per the records. The said 'A' Register was recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer pursuant to the Act 26 of 1948. Therefore, those documents cannot be lightly ignored, when there is no serious dispute about the entries. The evidence of D.W.1 indicates that the Temple properties were maintained by the plaintiff's predecessors and the plaintiff also. This Court cannot ignore the settlement register and its entries as to the nature of classification. Therefore, merely because patta has not been issued in favour of the Temple and patta has not been filed, it cannot be stated that the Temple has lost its right at all. Even assuming that the land is vested with the Government as per the Act 26 of 1948 and no patta was issued in favour of the Temple, admittedly the temple is still managed by the plaintiff after his predecessors. 20. Such view of the matter, once the property is classified as Temple land under 'A' Register, though patta has not been issued in the name of the temple, the said properties cannot be permitted to be encroached by third parties under the pretext of some documents, which did not create any title to them. Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession from the defendants and it is also made clear that the plaintiff also cannot deal with the properties in any manner without the permission of either the Government or the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. This is the time for the State to act in a reasonable manner to preserve the property belonging to either the State or the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. This is the time for the State to act in a reasonable manner to preserve the property belonging to either the State or the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Such view of the matter, the plaintiff certainly can recover the property and inform the same to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department for taking appropriate steps or to the Government to classify and utilise the properties for the benefit of the Government. Accordingly, the points are answered. 21. In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.63 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Pudukottai dated 15.03.1999 is set aside and the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.415 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Aranthangi dated 30.01.1997 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.