Ramanujam, J.-The appellant herein claimed patta for the lands comprised in various survey numbers and covered by inam title deed, T.D. No. 394 in Kunnathur Village in Tirunelveli District under section 8 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Act (XXX of 1963) on the ground that the inam grant comprised both the warams and that as hereditary huqdar of Sri Subramaniaswmi temple in Amman Sannadhi Street, Tirunelveli Town, he is entitled to patta. He filed various documents such as settlement deeds, sale deeds, extract of the fair inam register, kist receipts, Court orders etc., which were marked as Exhibits R. 1 to R. 16. 2. The said claim was resisted by respondents 3 to 33 herein stating that they have got kudivaram rights over the lands, that they have been issued pattas by the inamdar and that melwaram also has been collected from them on the basis of the said pattas. They filed documents such as pattas, receipt for payment of paddy as melwaram, sale deeds, etc., which have been marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-81. . 3. The settlement Tahsildar, after making due enquiries under section 11 of the said Act, held that the extract from the inam fair register Exhibit R-5 showed that the inam grant was a personal in am for bhattavirthi, that it is not a Devadayam inam, that even prior to the inam being confirmed the inam lands were shown to be in the enjoyment of ryots who were paying rent in kind to the inamdar, and that the same practice was being followed till the date of the commencement of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963. After considering the document filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 33 the Settlement Tahsildar felt that they clearly establish that the respondents’ predecessors-in-title were alienating and transferring their Kudi rights by registered deeds to the knowledge of the appellant and his predecessors-in-title, and that the alienations and transfers have been recognised by them by issuing pattas to the alienees or transferees and collecting melwaram from them. In the pattas issued to the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest by the inamdar, the melwaram to be paid to the inamdar has been specifically specified in column 7. Therefore, these documents were taken to clearly establish that the kudi rights vested in the respondents and not in the appellant. In the pattas issued to the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest by the inamdar, the melwaram to be paid to the inamdar has been specifically specified in column 7. Therefore, these documents were taken to clearly establish that the kudi rights vested in the respondents and not in the appellant. In this view the Settlement Tahsildar granted patta in the respondents in respect of the extents of lands in their respective possession under section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The appellant took the matter in appeal’ to the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) Tirunelveli, raising two grounds: (1) that the inam in question is a personal grant and not a service grant and, therefore, the provisions of section 8 (1) of the Act cannot be invoked, and (2) that the inam. grant consisted of both the warams as the statutory presumption under section 44 of the Act applies to the facts of this case, and that in any event the grant is in the nature of a permanent lease as distinguished from kudivaram interest and therefore the respondents are not entitled to ryotwari patta under section 8 (1) of the Act. 5. Dealing with the first ground the Tribunal, after going through the various entries in the inam fair register, took the view that the character of the inam having been described as cowle patta land, it should be taken that the grant was only of the melwaram. It also took the view that the entries in the inam fair register describing the grant as a hereditary grant clearly indicated that it is a personal grant. Thus the Tribunal substantially agreed with the appellant on the first contention. Dealing with the second contention, the Tribunal found that the presumption under section 44 of of the Act was a rebuttable one, and that Exhibits R. 4 and R. 5 clearly established that the appellant was entitled only to the melwaram alone. In this view, the Tribunal sustained the grant of patta to the respondents 3 to 33 under section 8(1) of the Act. 6. In this view, the Tribunal sustained the grant of patta to the respondents 3 to 33 under section 8(1) of the Act. 6. Apart from these two grounds the appellant also raised a legal contention that the lands covered by the inam have been subjected to full assessment under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956, that therefore the inam should be deemed to have become extinguished after such full assessment, and that there is no room for the application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 for grant of patta under section 8 (1) thereof. The Tribunal was not inclined to accept this contention of the Appellant that Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 cannot apply to the lands covered by the inam as the inam has been extinguished by the levy of full assessment under Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956, and that there was no inam to be abolished when Act XXX of 1963 came into force. However, the Tribunal gave liberty to the appellant to work out his rights separately in appropriate proceedings before the competent forum, on the ground that such a question cannot be canvassed before the Tribunal. The said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 7. As already pointed out the appellant’s case that the inam grant is not a Devadayam grant but a personal grant has been accepted by the Tribunal and that finding which is in favour of the appellant has not been attempted to be canvassed by the respondents before us. Even otherwise, once it is held that the inam grant consisted of only melwaram, section 8 (1) of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 will come into operation and any person owning kudiwaram can apply for patta under section 8 (1). Thus the main question that arises in this appeal is as to whether the respondents 3 to 33 owned the kudiwaram in the lands in question so that they can claim patta under section 8 (1). 8. It is seen from the materials on record that even prior to the inam commission, the inam lands in question were in the enjoyment of the ryots, that they had been paying rent in kind to the inamdars and that practice was being continued till the Tamil Nadu Act.XXX of 1963 came into force. 8. It is seen from the materials on record that even prior to the inam commission, the inam lands in question were in the enjoyment of the ryots, that they had been paying rent in kind to the inamdars and that practice was being continued till the Tamil Nadu Act.XXX of 1963 came into force. The documents also indicate that respondents 3 to 33 and their predecessors-in-title have been alienating and transferring their kudiwaram rights by registered deeds to the knowledge of the appellant and his predecessors-in-title and such transfers have been recognised by them by issuing patta to the transferees or alienees. The pattas produced by the respondents as having been issued by the inamdars indicate that what they were paying was rent in kind. This conduct on the part of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title alienating or transferring their rights by registered documents treating the lands as their own clearly indicate that they are having the kudiwaram right in the lands in question. In the face of these documents, it is very difficult to accept the appellant’s case that the respondents’ possession and enjoyment of the lands have to be construed only as that of a permanent lessee as distinguished from persons having kudiwaram interest. Once the appellant has been held to be entitled to the melwaram. alone, then the documents filed by the respondents would clearly indicate that the respondents or their predecessors-in-title were in possession of the lands. On the materials the presumption under section 44 of the Act stands clearly rebutted and as such section 8 (1) of the Act will come into play. The Tribunal, therefore, appears to be right in upholding the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of respondents 3 to 33 under section 8 (1) of the Act. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would however point out that the Tribunal is not light in not deciding the question as to whether the inam has been extinguished as a result of the full assessment under Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956. According to the learned counsel when once the inam is found to have been extinguished, there is no question of applying the provisions of Act XXX of 1963. According to the learned counsel when once the inam is found to have been extinguished, there is no question of applying the provisions of Act XXX of 1963. It has already been noted that the Tribunal has taken the view that this point cannot be urged before it and that the appellant has to agitate this question in separate proceedings before the competent forum. The learned counsel relies on the decision in Subbachariar v. State of Madras1wherein a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that where the inam grant is only of the assessment, whether whole or partial, if full assessment is levied, the inam gets extinguished, that it could no more be said to retain its essential inam character, that the full assessment would be tantamount in effect to resumption of the inam, and that if there is no inam, there is no question of application of the provisions of either Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963 or XXX of 1963. This decision appears to support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that if the original inam grant is only of the assessment, then if full assessment is levied under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956, the inam gets extinguished and there is no room for application of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963, thereafter. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents would, however, rely on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Vedaranyeswaraswami Devas v. State of Madras2wherein another Bench has taken the view that the imposition of full assessment under Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956 cannot abrogate the inam, for the object of the enactment is to preserve the inam and to assess the inam, although the assessment might practcially be the same as the subject-matter of the inam itself. Relying on the said decision the learned counsel contends that the inam cannot be taken to have been extinguished by the application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956 and, therefore, there is full scope for the application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 to the lands in question. Relying on the said decision the learned counsel contends that the inam cannot be taken to have been extinguished by the application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956 and, therefore, there is full scope for the application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 to the lands in question. In K. Gopalachari v. State3another Division Bench also expressed the view that the levy of ryotwari full assessment cannot be regarded as amounting to resumption of the inam that it does not result in abrogation of the inam tenure and that the inam tenure is preserved notwithstanding the levy of full assessment. As already stated, the Tribunal has not dealt with this aspect on the ground that such a question has to be canvassed before the appropriate forum and not before it. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the question whether the inam got extinguished as a result of the levy of full assessment under Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956 cannot be decided by the Tribunal constituted under Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963. Such a question could be decided only under the Tamil Nadu Inams (Surplementary) Act, 1963, (Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1963) which is an Act to provide for the determination of the question whether any non-ryotwari area in the State of Tamil Nadu is or is not an existing inam estate, a part village inam estate, a minor inam or a whole inam village. Under the said Act, if a dispute arises as to whether a particular land is or is not an inam, the matter has to be decided under section 5 of Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1963. In this case, before the Settlement Tahsildar the appellant did not claim that there is no inam at all for the application of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 but raised such a point only before the Tribunal at the stage of the appeal. Whether the inam got extinguished by the levy of full assessment under Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956 can only be decided under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1963. Therefore, without deciding the said question, we give liberty to the appellant to agitate that question under the Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1963. Whether the inam got extinguished by the levy of full assessment under Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1956 can only be decided under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1963. Therefore, without deciding the said question, we give liberty to the appellant to agitate that question under the Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1963. We also make it clear that the disposal of this appeal will not preclude the appellant from agitating the said question under the said Act or the respondents from putting forward all defences that are open to them in those proceedings. 11. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.