@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Prabha Sridevan, J.@mdashThere is one Ammani Ammal Madam in Tiruvannamalai, standing on an extent of 25,247 sq.ft. intended to provide shelter for pilgrims.
2. The appellants filed the suit for declaration that their family should be in management of the Schedule mentioned properties as trustees and for possession. According to them, there was originally a Choultry known as Bangalore T.A. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and Ammani Ammal Choultry. It was founded by one Ammani Ammal who constructed the northern Gopuram of the Temple which was known as Ammani Ammal Gopuram. At the time of construction the building now known as Madam was used for storing the construction materials for the Gopuram. Later when the Gopuram was completed this building was left by the said Ammani Ammal for providing shelter for pilgrims. In 1764, Ammani Ammal entrusted the management of the Choultry to the appellants'' predecessors.
3. The genealogical tree appended to the plaint would show the relationship. T.A. Vijayapuri Chettiar had four sons, Ponnusami Chettiar (P), Rathinavelu Chettiar (R), Vajravel Chettiar (V) and Manickavel Chettiar (M). P died issueless. R died leaving two sons who are dead and their wives are appellants 1 and 2. V had two sons. His branch is not represented in the suit. M had three sons, one of whom is dead and the other two are appellants 3 and 4. M executed a Will on 08.08.1966. The management of the Choultry is mentioned in the said Will. There is reference to a watchman, who must be paid salary regularly. The Will had been acted upon. R also executed a Will on 16.9.1962. Here too is a reference to Ammani Ammal Choultry and to the watchman. The photostat copies of the two Wills have been produced. In 1890, the grandfather of R and M received a letter from the Sub-Collector, South Arcot regarding this Madam. A photostat copy of the said communication is also filed. In 1939, the first respondent''s father Perumal wrote to R regarding the Municipal Tax etc., and this letter would show that the first respondent''s father had no independent right in respect of the building, but was only a watchman. On 25.10.1944, a notice was issued by the Municipality, Tiruvannamalai complaining of some health hazard. R had written a reply in his own handwriting. The Town Field Survey Register would show that the property is referred to as Ammani Ammal Madam. After the death of R and M, their heirs were not evincing much interest in the management of the Choultry. Taking advantage of the same, the first respondent set up an independent claim in respect of the suit property. So the suit was filed.
4. The first respondent filed two written statements, both on 18.07.1984. He denied that it was a Madam. According to him, it was a private property belonging to his ancestors. Ammani Ammal was his ancestor. According to him, there is no dedication, no choultry and there was no entrustment or appointment of any trustee. He denied the genealogy tree; denied the existence and execution of the Will. According to him, his father was not a watchman and in any event they had perfected title by adverse possession undisturbed by anyone. The letters said to have been written by him or his father to the appellant were denied. He also claimed that he had gifted the portion of the suit property to the Tiruvannamalai Municipality. This would show that he had been exercising absolute rights and if the appellant had an ancestral right, they would have objected to the said gift. The third respondent, who is the tenant has instigated this suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and therefore, this appeal has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that a trust property which was intended to be for the benefit of the pilgrims is attempted to be converted to a private property. Ancient documents had been filed to show that there was a trust and there was a Madam. Even in the property tax receipts, the suit property was referred to as the Madam. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to now say that there was no such trust or Madam. He would also submit that the genealogy has not been challenged in cross-examination and therefore, it stands untraversed. The old documents under which the respondent''s father and thereafter, the respondents had received letters from the family of the appellants and had also written letters cannot be totally rejected. If the respondents want to deny the signature or deny that they were the persons referred to in those communications, they ought to have explained that another person with the same name lived in the same address. Otherwise, the name Chinnathambi and Perumal can only refer to the first respondent and his father respectively. According to the learned counsel, there was no question of the suit being barred by limitation. When it is the case of the appellant that the respondent has been in possession by permission, it is for him to show the date from which the possession changed character. The very fact that the property tax has been paid in the name of the Madam would show that the respondent had acknowledged the title of the trust. Even now, the appellants are not claiming title in them. They only want a declaration that they are the trustees. The question of adverse possession would also therefore not arise. So the appeal must be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the suit has been filed and court-fee paid u/s 28 of the Court-fees Act, which would pre-suppose the existence of the Trust. If that is not established, suit has to be dismissed and consequent relief cannot be granted. There is no plea of dedication and it cannot be held in favour of the appellant by inference. Even if the plea of entrustment is admitted it will not be equivalent to trusteeship. It was submitted that Ammani Ammal was not related to the appellants and it was unlikely that a resident of Tiruvannamalai would choose some person from Bangalore to be a Trustee. The Wills produced by the appellants are not originals; they were not proved in accordance with law and no one connected to the Will has been examined. When neither the testator nor anyone else as per Section 61 of the Evidence Act is examined, the Wills cannot be admitted in evidence. The other documents are all handwritten copies, which are stated to be communication from the appellants or their ancestors or addressed to the appellants by the ancestors cannot be admitted in evidence. No acts of management has been proved nor acts of possession and finally the relationship of the parties to Ammani Ammal was also denied. Therefore, he would submit that there is no justification to hold in favour of the appellant.
7. The questions to be determined are as follows:
(1) Whether there was a trust known as Ammani Ammal Madam, managed by the plaintiffs and their ancestor?
(2) Whether the genealogy pleaded is true?
(3)Whether Ex-Al and A16 are proved in accordance with law ?
(4) In what capacity was the first defendant and his father enjoying the suit property?
8. First, the question of whether the suit properties are trust properties will be dealt with. If that is answered in the negative then everything else fails. Many documents were marked as exhibits. Ex-A8 is the extract from the property tax demand register of the Tiruvannamalai Municipality and here the name of the owner is shown as Chinnathambi Pillai Trustee, Ammani Ammal Mandapam. In Ex-A9, which is subsequent the word "Trustee" is not there. Ex-All is a letter said to have been issued by one Rathinavelu Chetty to the Health Officer, Medical Health Department, Tiruvannamalai where he refers to the Charity being owned by him and which had been donated at the request of Ammani Ammal in 1764 and there is also a reference to a Choultry. This is a handwritten copy. Ex-A12 is a letter addressed to Chinnathambi son of Perumal, Watchman, Ammani Ammal Choultry. This is denied by the respondent as referring to him. This is dated 18.9.1979 and there is reference to a discussion held on 7.9.1979, wherein it was decided to hand over the Madam to the Devasthanam. On 3.10,1979, a letter is received by one Srinivasa Chettiar from the counsel of Chinnathambi son of Perumal of Tiruvannamalai. Here there is denial of any meeting with the appellant on 07.09.1979 or on any other date and it refers to Ammani Ammal being his ancestor. The extract from Ex-A13 may be relevant.
"After her life time the said house was called as Ammani Ammal Choultry. But actually, it is only a house and not a Choultry intended for public use."
(a) Ex-A14 is the endorsement made on the revision filed regarding property tax issued by the Municipal Office to Ponnusamy Chettiar, a Government Pensioner and the words are,
(b) The appellant has filed numerous documents to show that the suit property was referred to as Ammani Ammal Madam. Each exhibit is referred to by the learned Judge and rejected for one reason or the other. In some documents, the reference is to Arnmani Ammal Gopuram and they are rejected on the ground that there was no reference to Ammani Ammal Madam. Certain other documents refer to Ammani Ammal Madam and they are rejected on the ground that the door number given is No. 8. The letters written by the respondent are rejected as of no use on the ground that there is no reference to the Madam in those letters. The letters which are addressed to Perumal Pillai, Watchman are rejected saying that they may not refer to Perumal, the father of the respondent. But what the learned Judge failed to see is that there are several documents like Ex-B7 filed by the respondent himself which are documents in which lease is created to various parties in which there is reference to,
The plaint reads as follows:
"The property more fully described .... is a Madam .... It is more popularly known as Ammani Ammal Madam."
"It was initially founded by one Ammani Ammal at the time she constructed the northern Gopuram. ...... The said Choultry was constructed by the said Ammani Ammal for the purpose of storing the construction materials ..... Later, the said Ammani Ammal Madam came to be a Choultry by the said Ammani Ammal. .... for providing free shelter for pilgrims who come to Tiruvannamalai."
(c) The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the word "left" would not have the same legal effect as "dedicated". Ex-A14 is dated 25.02.1925 which is addressed to one T.V. Ponnusamy Chettiar of Bangalore in which the authorities of the Tiruvannamalai Municipality exempt the Ammani Ammal Madam from assessment of property tax. From all these documents as well as the pleadings, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there was one Ammani Ammal Madam. Even the first respondent does not deny that there was one Ammani Ammal Madam. It is his case that Ammani Ammal was his ancestor and though it was called as Ammani Ammal Choultry but it was intended to be a house. There is no proof that he is Ammani Ammal''s descendant but we will come to that later. Any way even he admits that there was one Ammani Ammal in or about 1764 and there was one Ammani Ammal Choultry. It is common knowledge that a Choultry is a public place where pilgrims come and rest.
(d) The following decisions were cited:
(1) Srinivasa Rau Saheb v. The Secretary of State for India, ILR Mad. 226 was for the presumption of grant from long user.
(2) Court of Wards v. Ilahi Bakhsh, ILR Cal. 297 was for presumption of dedication regarding trusts of unknown origin.
(3) Bholanath Nundi v. Midnapore Zemindary Company Limited, 31 I.A.
75 where it was held that when plaintiffs had a right of pasteurage from time immemorial, a legal origin for the tribe will be rightly presumed.
(4) Singh Sanatan Dharam High School Trust, Indaura v. Singh Rajput High School, Indaura, 65 IA 106 and Tribol Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madras, 1996 NRC 10 relates to non-examination of a witness on a relevant point.
(5) P.R. Ganapathi Aiyar''s book on Hindu and Mohammedan Endowments on following propositions.
Pg.74, in which it is stated that dedication may be expressed or implied and implied dedication may arise by apportion of law from the owner from Pg.92 where it is found as follows:
"Under the Hindu law, as under the English common law, no form of words is necessary to a dedication or a trust and no writing is necessary, no specific grant by deed is necessary to constitute an endowment." At Pg. 130, "where there has been such long, continued user in assertion of right, such right must be presumed to have had a legal origin, if such a legal origin was possible" and finally at Pg. 141, "where there is a founder, who is competent to lay down rules, but where there is a deed of foundation, the intention of the donor must be gathered from the deed or foundation and in the absence of such a deed, from his acts."
(e) The plaint is to the effect that the Choultry was constructed by Ammani Ammal to store the construction materials used for construction of Ammani Ammal Gopuram and later it came to be a Choultry left by the said Ammani Ammal to provide free shelter for the pilgrims. The question is whether this is enough to show dedication. In the evidence of D.W.I, the respondent has stated that the suit property was constructed by Ammani Ammal.
(f) So far as the manner in which this construction has come about, the defendant also corroborates the case of the plaintiff. In para 4 of the written statement it is said that the defendants'' ancestor one Ammani Ammal constructed the Northern Gopuram of Arunachaleswarar Temple and at that time, for her stay and for storing materials the suit property was constructed. But however, according to the defendant it was originally called Ammani Ammal''s house and later on called Ammani Ammal''s Madam but it was never a Choultry intended for public use.
(g) As already stated even in the earlier documents, there is reference to Ammani Ammal Madam and the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in 40 Cal.297(cited supra), there was a record in the old document to a Kabristhan (grave-yard). The question was whether in the absence of any dedication, or any declaration of a wakf it was possible to hold that a land in dispute was a wakf. Their Lordships held that by user, if not by dedication, the land is wakf and the entry in the record of rights seems conclusive on the points.
(h) Therefore, from the decisions cited it is clear that when the user shows a Trust of ancient origin, then even in the absence of evidence regarding dedication, it is proper to accept that there was a Trust. The continuous reference to Ammani Ammal Madam would show that it was used as a Madam or a Choultry which was used as a Public Trust. The pleadings speak of the removal of a stone slab with inscription to show that it is a Madam. This is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. There is nothing in the evidence of defendants'' witnesses to disbelieve the existence of a stone slab and subsequent removal.
(i) The Text Book on Religious Endowments referred to above also shows that long continued user as a Trust leads to a presumption that it has a legal origin. If the respondents want to show that it is only a house, it is for them to prove it. Even their own documents refer only to Ammani Ammal Madam. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to accept their case that it is a private property. The appellants have established there is a trust.
9. The next question is with regard to the genealogy. Two of the documents that were referred to are the Will dated 16.9.62 by one Rathinavelu Chettiar and 8.8.62 by Manickavel Chettiar. According to the plaint, T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar was the one, who was originally given the Trust by Ammani Ammal. The genealogy tree has been appended to the plaint. The respondent at para No. 6 of the written statement denied the genealogy. But P.W.I would state,
Therefore, not even one question has been asked about the relation between Vaiyapuri Chettiar and P.W.1. From the decisions cited it is seen that when there is no cross-examination on a point it can be held that the defendant had accepted the plaintiff''s case on the point in its entirety. But even apart from the absence of cross-examination regarding genealogy, the production of various documents from the custody of the appellants, indicates the relationship of the appellants with T.A. Vaiyapuri Chettiar.
(a) Ex-A3 is the receipt for private scavenging fees issued by the Tiruvan-namalai Municipality to Vaiyapuri Chetty. In the reverse, the words found are "Ammani Ammal Gopuram, 8th Street". Ex.A-4 is again receipt for private scavenging fees, and it says, ''Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Madam''. Ex-A5 is of the year 23.3.26, again for the same purpose which also refers to Ammani Ammal Madam. Ex-A6 is also a receipt for the private scavenging fees issued to Vaiyapuri Chettiar and it refers to Ammani Ammal Madam. No questions have been asked regarding the genuineness of these documents. Therefore, it is clear that Vaiyapuri Chetty and Ammani Ammal Madam were connected and these documents have been produced from the custody of the appellants. Ex-A 11 is a handwritten copy referring to the charity of Ammani Ammal Madam; it is not a true copy. It is difficult to accept the appellants'' case merely on this document. Ex-A14 is the intimation from Thiruvan-namalai Municipality office to T.V.Ponnusami Chettiar son of Vaiyapuri Chettiar and it is seen there that the Madam has been exempted from assessment of property tax. A Postcard has been marked as Ex-A23 written by one Perumal Pillai of Thiruvannamalai to one Rathinavelu Chettiar. The words in this exhibit are:
Therefore, reading Ex-A23 with the document mentioned earlier, it is clear that one Perumal Pillai from Thiruvannamalai has been writing to Rathinavelu Chettiar regarding the Chattiram. There is no reason to hold that this does not relate to Ammani Ammal Chatram, Ex-A24 is another letter with the postal stamp of the year 1962, which is written by Chinnathambi Pillai. Chinnathambi Pillai gives his address as Ammani Ammal Gopuram Veethi, Ammani Ammal Madam, Tiruvannamalai. It is addressed to the same V. Rathinavelu Chettiar to whom the earlier post card, Ex-A23 has been addressed. Therefore, Perumal Pillai and after him, Chinnathambi have been in correspondence with Rathinavelu Chettiar regarding the Chatram. So atleast until 1962, the date of Ex-A24 one Perumal Pillai and Chinnathambi Pillai have been in correspondence with Rathinavelu Chettiar, the father in law of the appellants herein in connection with the suit property.
(b) So on a total reading of the oral and documentary evidence, the production of old receipts from the custody of appellants, and absence of cross-examination regarding the genealogy, it can be held that Vaiyapuri Chetty was managing the Madam and the genealogy has been proved.
10. Next we come to the identity of the respondents. The respondent has glibly denied that the above letters were addressed to him or that he or his father Perumal has received them. According to them, Ex-A25 was written by him since Rathinavelu Chettiar was his acquaintance. He has not explained how a person in Bangalore could be his acquaintance. In Cross, he says that he saw Rathinavelu Chettiar and he did not know whether he would stay in Thiruvannamalai and nobody have introduced them both. He denied that the signatures in Exs-A22 and A23 are his father''s signatures. But there are references to Perumal Pillai and to Chinnathambi Pillai from Ammani Ammal Madam at Tiruvannamalai and letters from them to Rathinavelu. The appellants'' case is that the reference is to the respondent Chinnathambi Pillai and his father Perumal Pillai. The names and the initials and the address tally.
(a) If the respondents want to deny that it was written by them or to them they should show that there was another Perumal Pillai or Chinnathambi Pillai, who were constantly in correspondence with the appellants'' ancestors, When Perumal Pillai has clearly written about the role played by the Temple Trustees in exempting Ammani Ammal Madam from payment of property tax, it is evident that this Perumal Pillai had been acting on behalf of Rathinavelu Chettiar and in the interest of the Madam. Surely, the respondent, who claims to be in the suit property for several years should know this other Perumal Pillai, who had acted for Ammani Ammal Madam with regard to the property tax payment. No such explanation is forthcoming.
(b) The Appellate Court has chosen to take each document separately and has pointed out to some defect in it for rejecting it. Any document, seen in isolation, may not be sufficient to prove a fact. The Courts should read the evidence as a whole and decide whether the case of the parties are supported or are probabilised by the oral and documentary evidence. There is no attack on the genuineness receipts for scavenging fees. The Trial Court ought to have asked the question how and why a person in Bangalore had in his custody the receipts for scavenging fees of a choultry in Tiruvannamalai, hundreds of miles from Bangalore. If the Trial Court had approached the evidence from this angle it would have seen that there was a Madam, it was founded by Ammani Ammal and that the Madam was in the management of the ancestors of the appellants.
(c) The first respondent denied that he was there as a watchman, and threatened to file a defamation suit. It has already been found that there was a Trust, and Vaiyapuri Chetty was managing it. The genealogy has been accepted. According to the respondent, the defendants and his ancestors belong to Agamudayar caste and Ammani Ammal died without any male issue and after her life time, Chinnammal, the step mother of Ammani Ammal and the grand father of Ammani Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In some of the documents there are references to Appavoo Naicker and Perumal Naicker and in some other, there are references to Appavoo Pillai and Perumal Pillai. In fact, though the case of the respondent is that Appavoo Naicker was the father of Perumal, in the death certificate marked, Perumal Pillai''s father is shown as Appavoo Pillai and also in Ex-B6 dated 20.11.22. The father of the first respondent calls himself as belonging to the Tuluva Vellalar group. The connection of Appavoo Naicker, who is said to be the descendant of Ammani Ammal and Appavoo Pillai, who is the grandfather of the first respondent is shrouded in suspicion. There is no evidence to prove the relationship between Ammani Ammal and Perumal Pillai. It is clear that the Perumal and his son, the first respondent herein, have been in correspondence with Rathinavelu Chettiar regarding the suit property. Ex-A1 was attacked as not having been proved in accordance with law. Ex-A1 is the original Will. P.W. 1 says that he was present at that time. He has spoken of due execution and attestation by the witnesses. He has also given evidence that the attestors are dead. There is no cross-examination regarding his presence at the time of execution or the factum of attestation. There is also no cross-examination on the availability of the attestors. There is no cross-examination on P.W. 1''s presence at the time of execution. There is no cross-examination regarding his identification of the signature of the attesting witness. There is no cross-examination on the Will having been acted upon. The Will has been produced from proper custody. Ex-Al has been proved. It supports that there was a Vaiyapuri Chetty-Ammani Animal Chatram, and that there is a watchman, and also that the testator wanted the Ayarval Charities to take over the Madam. This is an additional evidence of the Madam. Even if the reference to Watchman does not specify the names of the first respondent or Perumal it is clear the "testator" and his family is in control over the Madam.
(d) As regards Ex-A16, the attesting witness P.W.2, has been examined. He speaks of due execution and attestation. He personally has the knowledge of registration. According to him, this Will has been filed into Court. The cross-examination is only regarding whether the property mentioned in Exs-Al and A16 is the suit property and whether the Chinnathambi mentioned therein is the first respondent. So in Ex-A16, where the attesting witness speaks of the Will and when no question has been asked to refute what was said by P.W. 1, in chief that the original was filed in Court, the requirements of Evidence Act must be held to be satisfied.
(e) The respondent on the other hand, relied on
11. As regards adverse possession, the case of the respondent is that they have perfected title by adverse possession. The relevant passage is in para No. 8 of the written statement.
"This defendant and his predecessors in title have been in open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit property and thereby perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession also."
But it is already been found in the earlier paragraphs that the respondent and his father have been acting on behalf of the trustees of the Madam and on their instructions. A loud protest was raised as to the recitals in the Will being accepted as evidence of appointment of watchman.
(a) In the above paragraphs, it has been held that both the Wills have been proved and in both the Wills there are references to Ammani Ammal Madam at Tiruvannamalai and the watchman therein. But even without that there are materials to come to the conclusion that the respondents were only in possession by permission of the appellants and their predecessors in title. Ex-A22 clearly shows that P.W. 1 is not at all saying the truth even under the oath. According to D.W.1, he does not know Rathinavel Chettiar. He has seen him only once at the Deepam Festival and only in those circumstances, he had written to him and he may have sent him invitation for the festival. Ex-A22 is written by Perumal Pillai, who describes himself as Ammani Ammal Madam Perumal Pillai, the respondent did not explain who this Perumal Pillai is and he really denied that it was addressed by his father but it is clear that it is his father who wrote the Ex-A22 and in Ex-A22, the father of the respondent has addressed the predecessors in title of the appellants regarding the municipal notice and also that immediately steps should be taken on receipt of the notice. Since there is no explanation, forthcoming as to why this Chettiar living in Bangalore should take a decision regarding the notice issued by the Municipality in respect of the Ammani Ammal Madam contrary to the appellants'' claim that it is because they and their families have been the Trustees. The appellants'' claim must be accepted.
(b) Ex-A23 has also been written by Perumal Pillai and here it is also addressed to Rathinavel Chettiar and there is reference to and the request by the Temple Trustees and Chairman to use the Choultry for public through the Kumbabishekam and he has also explained to Rathinavel Chettiar that the Chatram was used by the Kumbabishekam devotees because the Chairman had helped the Madam for exempting the Madam from property tax. This also supports the case of the plaintiff/ appellant that the respondent and before him, his father were taking care of the Madam on behalf of the trustees.
(c) Ex-A24 is written by the respondent to Rathinavel Chettiar. Ex-A25 has also been written by him. Though the letter invites the Chettiar and the family to the festival, enough details have been given to discourage the Chettiar from attending the festival. In 1962, the respondent has stated that because of the war, the Police bandobust has been stopped by the Government and there are no special buses. In Ex-A25, again there is reference to Cholera. It is evident that the respondents, who were allowed to be in possession of the suit property wanted to discourage the appellants from going to the Madam. In any event, unless the respondents show when they turned hostile to the rights of the appellant their plea of adverse possession cannot succeed and for this, this Court draw strength from the judgment of the Division Bench in
"Permissive possession does not become hostile till there is an assertion of an adverse possession to the knowledge of the owner. The permissive character of the possession can be inferred from the attending circumstances even without direct evidence. If possession is found to be permissive at the inception, the possessor cannot prescribe or sustain title or any claim adversely to the grantor of the possession."
(d) The Appellate Court has disbelieved the case of the appellant because in Ex-A21, Chettiar had addressed the respondent''s father as and therefore, this word would not have been used for a watchman who is in his pay. It is not surprising that in the present times when politeness and courtesy have become old-fashioned words, the learned Judge is unable to believe that there were people long ago, who were of the opinion that human beings owed each other the basic courtesy and politeness. Unfortunately, people like Rathinavel Chettiar, who wrote Ex-A21 are now a dying creed and therefore, the scepticism of the learned Judge that no master would have treated his servant with such kindness.
(e) The case of the appellants is also fortified by the receipts which have already been referred to for the payment of Rs. 5000 to the father of the appellant. Ex-A8 is of the year 1969 and in this the name of the owner is shown to Chinnathambi Pillai trustee Ammani Ammal Madam. This cannot be construed as the starting point of the adverse possession because here the description of the respondent as trustee of the Madam shows that he is not claiming title against the Madam. At the best it can be construed as claim for adverse possession to trusteeship against the appellant. But since this is not the pleading, Ex-A21 cannot help the case of the respondent for establishing title by adverse possession. The various documents that have been referred to above in which the respondent and the respondent''s father have not set up any hostile right to the knowledge of Rathinavel Chettiar, Ex-A8 also cannot be treated as such. Ex-A9 is of the year 1970-71, the property tax demand register. In this for the first time there is a description of the respondent merely as Chinnathambi Pillai without the name of trustee. From Ex-A12, it is seen that only then the appellants had knowledge of the respondent acting unilaterally without reference to them and also the fact that the appellant had removed stone inscriptions indicating the existence of choultry. To this a notice has been issued Ex-A25 denying the appellant''s rights and also stating,
"It is equally false to allege that my client remove the stone inscriptions. On the other hand, there was no stone inscription at all, nor was there any necessity for my client to remove the same. That my client states that it is highly defamatory to describe my client as watchman. My client is taking separate steps for defaming my client as watchman."
(f) In the above said paragraphs it has already been found that there is a trust and therefore, the above averments are untenable. The respondent and his father knew exactly who Rathinavel Chettiar was and that he is Vaiyapuri Chettiar''s descendant entitle to manage the Ammani Ammal Madam. Only by Ex-A25, dated 23.09.1986 the appellants were put on notice of the intention of the respondent to claim the property for himself. The suit has been filed in 1983 and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession.
12. For all these reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. A.S. No. 347 of 1987 is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. No costs.
13. In view of the wishes of the testator in Ex.A1 and the obvious practical difficulties faced by the appellants to manage the Trust and to protect it from persons like the respondents who might grab it for personal use, a direction is given to the appellants to coordinate with the Executive Officer of the Tiruvannamalai Devasthanam so that the Devasthanam Authorities or any other charitable trust like the charities mentioned in Ex-A1 are made trustees along with the family of the appellants.
