RANJAN GOGOI, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals seek to challenge the common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 29th January, 2007 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 543 to 545 of 1994 by which the decree of the dismissal of the suits filed by the plaintiff has been reversed by the High Court.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(3.) THE common case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the suits filed is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties by virtue of Patta No.1 granted to it and that the defendants are either lessees under the plaintiff or sub -lessees/sub -assignees under the lessees of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had stopped rendering service to the temple and had also not paid the rent due. Instead they had set up title to the suit properties. The leases were accordingly terminated by issuing notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, the suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession were instituted. The defendants in each of the suit contested the case of the plaintiff and filed their written statements. According to the defendants, the suit properties belonged to them by inheritance; the plaintiff is not the owner thereof. In any case, according to the defendants, they had acquired title to the suit properties by prescription on account of their long possession. The defendants had filed additional written statements in each of the case contending that they were permanent ryots under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1908 Act") and that the suit properties are included in an estate which was abolished under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1948 Act"). Hence, according to the defendants, the plaintiff had no locus to institute the suits in question.;