JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 made in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 made in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli.) COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. The 1st respondent in both the appeals as a plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, against the appellants and other respondents in both the appeals, who are the defendants in the said suit, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, a part of which has been serving as a passage, by raising any construction and further preventing the sight and view of the ancient Mottai Gopuram from all angles by the pilgrims and worshippers of Lord Sriranganathaswamy while visiting this ancient monument or in the alternative, if per chance before the service of injunction order, the defendants complete their unlawful act of construction, to pass a decree directing the defendants to deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property after removal of all such structures put up by them at their cost, if not through process of Court and for future profits from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession with costs of the suit. The trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003, partly decreed the suit, granting the relief of permanent injunction and recovery of possession, but sofaras the relief of future profits from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession, the trial Court gave liberty to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to work out its remedy under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 2 and 4 to 9 filed an appeal in A.S.No.685 of 2004. Pending that appeal, the 3rd defendant and two other third parties filed an appeal in A.S(MD)No.169 of 2009 challenging the judgment and decreed passed in the suit. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Pending that appeal, the 3rd defendant and two other third parties filed an appeal in A.S(MD)No.169 of 2009 challenging the judgment and decreed passed in the suit. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The suit properties are occupied by the historical and ancient Mottai Gopuram and other properties around the same belong to the plaintiff temple and it is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The entire land in the eastern area wherein, the ancient Motta Gopuram is situate in T.S.Nos.2163/1B14p, 2163/1B15p, T.S.No.2163/1B16p, T.S.No. 2164/2a, 2164/2b and T.S.No.2164/2c of Vellithirumutham Village, Trichy Taluk. These lands in various town survey numbers referred to among other properties are covered by the title deed No.1027 in favour of the plaintiff and a document therefor has been produced. The abovesaid Gopuram in T.S.No.2163/1B15p is situated in 55 cents of land. A rough sketch has also been produced therefor. The said Gopuram is facing east and west entrance and on the west, it connects Nelson Road and on the east, it connects Madras Trunk Road. It is only through this tower, the idol of Lord Ranganathaswamy used to be taken every year on the 8th day of Panguni Adhi Birama Thirunal. The plaintiff has been exercising the rights of ownership over the suit properties by undisputable possession and enjoyment for over centuries. 2.1. After the advent of the Tamilnadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, 30/1963, when the question of ryotwari patta to the inam properties came up, settlement proceedings were initiated by the settlement Tahsidlar, who took up the enquiry in respect of the suit properties as well as other properties. Against the order not granting ryotwari patta for the lands as put forward by the plaintiff, the plaintiff preferred appeals to the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Trichirapalli (V Additional Subordinate Judge), in CMA.No.36/81 and 31 other appeals. Though the Tribunal heard all the 32 appeals and dismissed the same, but however, in CMA.No.18/78 batch of appeals, patta for the lands were granted. In respect of T.S.Nos.2164/1 & 2(which was later sub divided as T.S.Nos. Though the Tribunal heard all the 32 appeals and dismissed the same, but however, in CMA.No.18/78 batch of appeals, patta for the lands were granted. In respect of T.S.Nos.2164/1 & 2(which was later sub divided as T.S.Nos. 2164/2A & 2164/B and 2164/C) a nebulous finding has been rendered by the Tribunal to the effect that though both melvaram and kudivaram were available for the plaintiff, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the question of limitation and res judicata, against which, the plaintiff filed appeals in STA.No.6/88 and 31 other appeals before the High Court, contending that the Tribunal having admitted the appeals after excusing the delay, ought not to have dismissed the same on the ground of limitation and further, as regards res judicata, the matter is now pending in SLP.No.12475/84 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2.2. Thus, it is clear that in respect of grant of ryotwari patta for the suit properties, the matter is subjudice and has not attained finality and hence, prima facie, the title to the suit properties is with the plaintiff. Further, when some persons claiming interest in the property, attempted to pay kist to the Government, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.185/73 before the High Court against the State of Tamilnadu, restraining them from collecting tax from any other persons, other than the plaintiff temple and the said suit was decreed and no appeal was filed against that decree, as such, it attained finality. Thereafter, while there was a trespass in and around Mottai Gopuram by some third parties, the plaintiff filed O.S.Nos. 246/79 to 248/79, which were decreed upholding the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff to the properties covered by the title deed No. 1027 including the suit properties. As per the latest decisions of the High Court, the proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act granting ryotwari patta is not conclusive proof for title. The plaintiff by a notification in the Government Gazette, shown themselves as owner of the suit properties and the enjoyment of the suit properties is fortified by the payment of kist by the plaintiff, ancient documents as well as various decisions in the judicial proceedings narrated supra. 2.3. The defendants in collusion with each other, created some documents to grab the suit properties and trying to interfere with the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties by attempting to raise constructions and they also put up pillars. 2.3. The defendants in collusion with each other, created some documents to grab the suit properties and trying to interfere with the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties by attempting to raise constructions and they also put up pillars. Apart from the pillars, the remaining land is agricultural nanja land which is attempted to be converted as house-site. Even under Section 10 of the Limitation Act, no adverse possession can be claimed by any one much less the defendants. In the last week of April 1989, in collusion with other defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 claiming to be the shareholders of Venkateswara Polyclinic attempted to raise constructions abutting the eastern entrance of the ancient Mottai Gopuram and therefore, the plaintiff issued a telegram to the defendants 1 and 2 strictly warning against such encroachments followed by a notice dated 01.05.1989. The defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply notice with false allegations. Hence the suit. 3. Brief averments in the written statement are as follows:- The 3rd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the other defendants, stating that the suit is liable to be dismissed for not stating the measurement or four boundaries of the suit properties and to what extent, the defendants are in possession of the suit properties. The alleged possession of Mottai Gopuram by the plaintiff is denied as false, as there is a litigation in this regard is pending before the High Court. The various town survey numbers mentioned in the plaint are not covered under the Title Deed No.1027. Neither the original title deed nor the inam fair register was produced before the Court to prove the case of the plaintiff. The rough sketch produced by the plaintiff is not correct. 3.1. The allegation that Mottai Gopuram is situate in T.S.No. 2163/1-b/15P to an extent of 55 cents and the alleged eastern and western boundaries thereto stated in the plaint, are denied, stating that the lands situate immediately east of the Mottai Gopuram had been used as agricultural fields for a long time, as such, the said lands could not have been the pathway leading to Mottai Gopuram and the idol of Lord Ranganathar was never taken through the ancient tower. Though the suit lands were minor inam lands under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the defendants denied the allegation that these lands were granted to the plaintiff as inam with both warams, as, on and from 15.02.1965, all the inam lands given under the head of minor inams, vested with the Government and in a suo motu enquiry held by the Settlement Tahsildar, patta was granted in favour of the predecessors of the defendants, against which, the plaintiff preferred appeals, in which, the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, negatived the claim of the plaintiff, by confirming the patta granted by the Tahsildar. The Tribunal further found that the alleged title deed in favour of the temple has already been interpreted by the High Court in S.A.No.628/1980, as not conferring both warams in favour of the plaintiff's temple. In the said batch of appeals, the contentions of the plaintiff were rejected and the order of the Settlement Tahsildar was confirmed. 3.2. Further, pendency of SLP.No.12475/84 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no relevance to the plaint claim and the filing of the suit in O.S.No.185 of 1973 has no bearing on the issue on hand, since admittedly, the defendants are not parties to the said suit. De hors the grant of patta, the Civil Court can go into the question of prescription of title by adverse possession and the Government Notification showing the plaintiff as owner of the suit properties will not confer any title on the plaintiff. Even otherwise, since the defendants have prescribed title by adverse possession to the suit properties, no title can be conferred on the plaintiff by any Government Notification and mere payment of kist will not prove possession of the suit properties by the plaintiff. 3.3. The allegation of manipulation of records and documents by the defendants is stoutly denied as false. Long before the institution of the suit, the defendants put up construction in the suit properties. The defendants have purchased their properties as per the approved lay-out from the respective vendors under valid sale deeds after parting with huge consideration. After the advent of the Inam Abolition Act, the inam character of the land was given a go-by and the lands were converted into ryotwari assessments. Revenue patta has also been granted in favour of the defendants, besides patta under the Inam Act. After the advent of the Inam Abolition Act, the inam character of the land was given a go-by and the lands were converted into ryotwari assessments. Revenue patta has also been granted in favour of the defendants, besides patta under the Inam Act. Now the lands have been converted as house sites and Srirangam Municipality has been collecting the land tax for all these years. As early as in 1972, the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Tiruchirapalli, Thanjavur Division, has approved the lay-out for the suit properties in DTP.No.15/72. 3.4. The predecessors in title of the defendants applied for grant of licence to the District Collector, for erection of a cinema theatre in the year 1984 in the suit properties. The plaintiff temple opposed the same by raising the very same contentions in the present suit. Consequent to the objection of the plaintiff, the District Collector deputed a Revenue Divisional Officer who visited the place in the presence of the plaintiff's officials and file a detailed report, specifically mentioning about the dilapidated condition of Mottai Gopuram and its abominable use and also the absence of any festival and the taking of idol of Lord Ranganathar through the vicinity of Mottai Gopuram. Ultimately, the objection of the temple was over-ruled by the Collector and licence for cinema theatre was granted and that the plaintiff had not taken the matter to the higher authorities, as such, the findings have become final. Thus, the plaintiff is estopped from raising the same contentions. 3.5. Thereafter, the defendants submitted a plan for putting up a building and by proceedings of the Commissioner of Srirangam Municipality 2621 of 1988 dated 02.02.1989, the defendants were permitted to put up staff quarters, nursing home, shop and residential complex and those constructions have already been completed. Thus, the defendants are in rightful possession of the suit properties and therefore, the allegation of alleged trespass and the attempt to put up encroachments is stoutly denied. Section 10 of the Limitation Act will apply only to cases of rendition of accounts in respect of religious institutions etc, and it will not be applicable in case of adverse possession and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and further, proper court fee has not been paid. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Section 10 of the Limitation Act will apply only to cases of rendition of accounts in respect of religious institutions etc, and it will not be applicable in case of adverse possession and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and further, proper court fee has not been paid. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether it is correct that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? (ii) Whether it is correct that the defendants acquired title by adverse possession? (iii) Whether it is correct that the suit is barred by limitation? (iv) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1 and 27 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A27. On the side of the defendants, 3 witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and 37 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B37. 6. The trial Court, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003, partly decreed the suit as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 2 and 4 to 9 filed an appeal in A.S.No.685 of 2004. Pending that appeal, the 3rd defendant and two other third parties filed an appeal in A.S(MD)No.169 of 2009 challenging the judgment and decreed passed in the suit. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals would submit that the suit properties belonged to the appellants even before 1905 and there are ancient documents to show that their predecessors in title have dealt with the suit properties as their private property and have been in continuous exclusive possession and enjoyment for more than several decades. The 1st respondent temple never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. At any rate, right from the year 1905 onwards, the predecessors in title of the appellants have been dealing with the suit properties as their own to the knowledge of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has no right at all in the suit properties. Long before the institution of the suit, the appellants have put up construction in the suit properties. The 1st respondent has no right at all in the suit properties. Long before the institution of the suit, the appellants have put up construction in the suit properties. The trial Court failed to see that Ex.A12-title deed is only conferred melvaram alone and no kudivaram is conferred on the 1st respondent temple and no document was produced showing the existence of kudivaram and even the High Court in S.A.No.628/1980, has held that kudivaram rights are at the hands of the occupants and not with the temple and therefore, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit. The trial Court failed to appreciate the documents produced by the appellants which are ante litem motem and also failed to note that inam proceedings have not become final and therefore, no reliance of Exs.A13 and A14 could be made. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals would further submit that the orders passed by the authorities under the Minor Inam Act are not conclusive and binding on the Civil Courts in deciding the title and it will not also operate as res judicata. The trial Court ought not to have relied on Exs.A9 and A10-judgments in O.S.Nos. 246 and 248 of 1979, since the appellants were not parties to the suits. The trial Court failed to note that after the Inam Abolition Act came into force, the appellants and their predecessors in title had prescribed title by adverse possession. Neither the original title deed nor the inam fair register was produced by the 1st respondent to prove their title and that there had been no pathway through the east of Mottai Gopuram and the idol of Lord Ranganathar was never taken through that Gopuram. Further, mere kist receipt-Ex.A7 and Chitta-Ex.A8 will not stand as document of title. The trial Court erred in rejecting the plea of adverse possession, on the ground that the Act 30 of 1963 abolished all the accrued rights and the trial Court ought not to have relied on Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whereas, the Court ought to have adverted to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act which prescribes rights accrued prior to 1952 as it will prevail over the Limitation Act. Further, the suit for possession and injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable. Further, the suit for possession and injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to allow these appeals. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:- (i) Sri Ranganathaswami Koil Devasthanam, Srirangam vs. S.Varadachari and another (S.A.No.628/1980 dated 04.07.1980) (ii) Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode vs. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi etc and others reported in 2003-1-L.W. 386. (iii) Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy reported in (2008_ 4 SCC 594. 9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the suit properties bearing T.S.Nos.2164/2A measuring 361 sq ft, 2164/2B measuring 14627 sq.ft, 2163/1B 14 a, measuring 6598 sq.ft, 2163/1B 14 b, measuring 6240 sq.ft, and 2163/1B 16 pro, measuring 2465 sq.ft, absolutely belong to the 1st respondent under title deed in T.D.No.1027 and the appellants are trying to put up construction encroaching those lands by blocking the view and access of the Mottai Gopuram of the temple which is an ancient monument. Though the Settlement Tahsildar granted patta to the claimants, the 1st respondent filed a batch of appeals before the Inam Tribunal against that order and though the appeals were dismissed, on remand by the High Court, the Inam Tribunal held that the 1st respondent temple is entitled for both melvaram and kudivaram and that the said order was not challenged by the appellants by filing appeal, as such, it attained finality. The judgment relied on by the appellants in S.A.No.628 is no way related to the suit properties and the trial Court considered the said judgment and rejected it. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit. There is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. Heard both sides and perused the records. 11. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit. There is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. Heard both sides and perused the records. 11. The specific case of the appellants is that their predecessors in title even prior to 1905 till the filing of the suit, were in possession of the suit properties and the appellants are bonafide purchasers for a valuable consideration and subsequently, the nature of the lands was also converted as house-site and the appellants also constructed buildings after obtaining necessary permission and all the municipal taxes paid in the name of the appellants and the possession of the suit properties is with the appellants' predecessors from time immemorial. Even otherwise, they have prescribed title by adverse possession and the 1st respondent has not proved their title. Even in some of the civil proceedings relied on by the 1st respondent, the appellants were not parties and therefore, the same are not binding on the appellants. Further, the 1st respondent has not proved that the suit properties are covered under the title deed in T.D.No.1027, as such, the 1st respondent have not established their title and possession to the suit properties. Therefore, both the appeals are to be allowed. 12. The specific case of the respondents is that the suit properties absolutely belong to the 1st respondent under the title deed in T.D.No. 1027. The appellants were trying to put up construction encroaching the above lands of the temple blocking the access to the Mottai Gopuram which is an ancient monument. The proposed construction of the appellants would completely block the view of the Mottai Gopuram and therefore, along with the relief of permanent injunction, the 1st respondent also sought the alternative relief of recovery of possession. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly decreed the suit. 13. The subject lands are inam lands subsequently belonged to the 1st respondent temple and the same is covered under the title deed in T.D.No.1027 issued by the Government in favour of the temple. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly decreed the suit. 13. The subject lands are inam lands subsequently belonged to the 1st respondent temple and the same is covered under the title deed in T.D.No.1027 issued by the Government in favour of the temple. Under the Tamilnadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, 30/1963, suo motu settlement proceedings were initiated in respect of the suit properties and other properties and the Settlement Tahsildar by a common order dated 09.08.1969, considered the claim of the individuals in Case No.239/69 and others and granted patta in favour of the claimants. Challenging the said order of the Settlement Tahsildar, the 1st respondent filed a batch of appeals before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal and the suit properties were the subject matter of Inam CMA.No.36/1981 and 31 other appeals. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by order dated 09.09.1983. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed STA.Nos.13 to 25 of 1987, 4 to 18 of 1988 and 3 to 6 of 1989 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 30.11.1996, allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Inam Tribunal for fresh consideration. 14. On remand, the Tribunal took up the matter and after a fullfledged enquiry, allowed all the appeals by judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998, holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to both varams and granted patta in favour of the temple in CMA.36/81. The said judgment copy was marked as Ex.A13. As against the said judgment, there is no further challenge by the appellants herein. Therefore, Ex.A13 became final. When the 1st respondent has specifically stated that the suit properties bearing T.S.Nos.2164/2A measuring 361 sq ft, 2164/B measuring 14627 sq.ft, 2163/1B 14 a, measuring 6598 sq.ft, 2163/1B 14 b, measuring 6240 sq.ft, and 2163/1B 16 pro, measuring 2465 sq.ft, are covered under T.D.No.1027, the appellants have not established that the said properties are not covered under the title deed in T.D.No.1027 and since the judgment passed in CMA.No.36/81 dated 30.11.1998 conferring on the 1st respondent temple both melvaram and kudivaram, has not been challenged by the appellants, they cannot take different stand. 15. 15. The 1st respondent proved their title through Ex.A4-certified copy of Inam Settlement Register, Ex.A9-judgment passed in O.S.No. 246/1979 dated 21.01.1984, Ex.A10-judgment passed in O.S.No. 248/1979 dated 28.02.1983, Ex.A11-certified copy of Srirangam Village Inam Register, Ex.A12-photocopy of the title dated 09.04.1910 and Ex.A13-judgment passed in CMA.No.36/1981 dated 30.11.1998. Once it is proved that the title deed in respect of the suit properties in T.D.No. 1027 is vested with the temple and the Inam Tribunal also conferred on the 1st respondent temple with both varams, no limitation would be applicable to the temple's property and no adverse possession can be claimed as against the temple's property. The trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence that the title of the temple to the suit properties has been established. Once the title of the 1st respondent's temple to the suit properties is established, the appellants are not entitled to claim any rights against the temple property. Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of these appeals. 16. This Court as a first appellate Court which is a final Court of fact finding, has to re-appreciate and give independent finding. This Court independently weighing the entire materials and considering the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and also the judgment of the trial Court, does not find any perversity or good reason to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 made in O.S.No.134 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. There is no merit in both the appeals. 17. In view of the above, both the Appeal Suits are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.