Judgment :- 1. This is a second appeal filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 372 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Kulitalai, against the Judgment and decree, dated 28th July, 1979 in A.S. No. 54 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. 2. The suit was filed for possession with mesne profits and costs. The defendant-appellant herein died, and his legal representatives were impleaded in the second appeal as per the order in C.M.P. No. 7623 of 1980, dated 25th August, 1980. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit lands originally comprised in T.D. No. 585 were portion of Devadayam grant in favour of the plaintiff-temple. The plaintiff-temple was enjoying both varams under the grant and it was exercising its full proprietorship over the lands. The defendant is one of the persons doing service in the temple under a private arrangement arrived at between themselves and the then trustees. They are entitled to the remuneration for their performing the service of Thavul and Thalam so long as they are required to do so by the temple and it is subject to their paying chathurbagam to the temple and porppu at 6 marakkals per acre to the temple. The suit lands appear to have been in possession of the defendant under an employment by the temple. The lands were allowed to be enjoyed by the defendant in lieu of the remuneration for the services rendered. This arrangement was only a contractual one and there is no permanent grant given by the then trustees of the temple to the temple servants. Even if the arrangement is a permanent one, it will not be binding on the plaintiff. It is neither necessary, nor beneficial to the temple. The arrangement is also neither a permanent one nor a hereditary one. Proceedings were initialed before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruchirapalli under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 to which the defendant was a party. Even if the arrangement is a permanent one, it will not be binding on the plaintiff. It is neither necessary, nor beneficial to the temple. The arrangement is also neither a permanent one nor a hereditary one. Proceedings were initialed before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruchirapalli under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 to which the defendant was a party. The defendant claimed some rights which were negatived by the Assistant Settlement officer who ordered the issue of ry otwari pacta to the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands The Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer has become final and conclusive Hence the defendant is estopped from contending against the same. The suit is also barred by “ res judicata ’. The suit lands which were dry have now been converted into wet lands. Whatever may be the claim of the service doers to receive remuneration for the services rendered by them to the plaintiff-temple, they have no right to remain in possession of the lands and the trustees are entitled to recover possession of the same. The Service-doers cannot contend that they should be remunerated in a particular way. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 20th November, 1975 demanding him to surrender p ossession of the suit property for which he gave a reply with false allegations. The defendant is liable to surrender possession to the plaintiff, account for the income derived from 30th August, 1972 till the date of possession. The plaintiff restricts its claim for mesne profits for three years prior to suit. 4. On the other hand, the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant herein before the trial court were as follows: The Inam Commissioner under S. 14(1)(b) of Act 26 of 1963 granted the suit lands to the defendant. Both the warams were not vested with the temple. The defendant was a kudivaramdar, the plaintiff being the melwaramdar. The defendant is performing the services of Thavul and Thalam in the temple paying chathurbagam and poruppu at 6 marakkals per acre for the suit lands. The defendant is not a paid servant under the temple. The arrangement between the defendant and the then trustees is a permanent one and it is binding on the temple. The service is absolutely necessary and beneficial to the temple. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is not final and not conclusive. The defendant is not a paid servant under the temple. The arrangement between the defendant and the then trustees is a permanent one and it is binding on the temple. The service is absolutely necessary and beneficial to the temple. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is not final and not conclusive. It is not binding on the civil court and the civil court has got every right to go into the question of title and decide the same. The defendant is not barred from questioning the title of the plaintiff. Only the defendant and his predecessors-in-title have been in possession. By arrangement the defendant is performing four poojas instead of two originally performed. The original arrangement cannot be changed at the whims and fancies of the trustees. The allegation that the defendant is entitled only to remuneration and is not entitled to remain in possession is untenable. The notice of the plaintiff has been properly replied. The services of the defendant can be terminated only by the Commissioner for H.R. & C E., till then, the plaintiff cannot interfere with his right. The plaintiff is not entitled to Claim mesne profits. When it is admitted that the defendants possession is permissive one, the plaintiff can ask only for chathurbagam and not mesne profits, as his possession is lawful. As per the terms of Hukumnamah, the grant was to the ancestors of the defendant burdened with service. So the plaintiff is entitled to have a charge over the suit properties for the due performance of the service. The temple was not granted both the warams and the kudivaram was always with the defendant and his ancestors. That suit lands are ryoti lands and were never under pannai cultivation. They were never the private Lands. Under S. 65(1) of Act 26 of 1963, the lands must be presumed to be ryotwari and the defendant is entitled to continue in possession of the same. In any event, the defendant is a cultivating tenant by virtue of private arrangement or implied tenancy. In view of the amendment to Act 26 of 1963, by virtue of Act 22 of 1975, the defendant being a person in occupation of an inam land is entitled to continue in possession of the lands as a cultivating tenant, notwithstanding the fact that he has been denied the grant of ryotwari patta. In view of the amendment to Act 26 of 1963, by virtue of Act 22 of 1975, the defendant being a person in occupation of an inam land is entitled to continue in possession of the lands as a cultivating tenant, notwithstanding the fact that he has been denied the grant of ryotwari patta. In view of the amending Act 22 of 1975, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant is entitled to occupancy right under S. 6 of the Estates Land Act. The suit has not been properly valued. There is no cause of action The suit is barred by limitation. It is bad for non-joinder of Venugopal, Srinivasan, Murugesan and Kanagasabapathy who have also rights in the suit properties. 5. On the above pleadings, the trial court framed four issues and decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred A.S. No. 54 of 1979 before the lower appellate Court. Before the Lower Appellate Court, the defendant/appellant herein filed an application under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C., to receive three documents as additional evidence. Though the plaintiff-respondent herein had not filed any counter, the counsel for the plaintiff made an endor sement in the petition itself opposing the same. The lower Appellate Court disposed of the said I.A. No. 279 of 1979 along with the appeal. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration in the appeal before it:— “1. Whether the document filed under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. is to be received? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the arrangement and recover possession of the suit property?” The lower appellate Court dismissed the application I.A. No. 279 of 1979 for the reception of the documents. Under point No. 2, the lower appellate Court held that the contention of the defendant/appellant herein that the lease is the permanent tenancy cannot be accepted. The payment of chathurbagam all these years may not justify the inference of permanent occupancy right. Further the payment of chathurbagam cannot amount to the payment of fixed rent in view of the fact that yield may vary year by year. The suit lands belong to the temple, as seen from Ex. B19. The question of pannai or private or ryoti is inapplicable in case of religious institution. Further the payment of chathurbagam cannot amount to the payment of fixed rent in view of the fact that yield may vary year by year. The suit lands belong to the temple, as seen from Ex. B19. The question of pannai or private or ryoti is inapplicable in case of religious institution. The possession of the suit property by the defendant is only a permissive one and the plaintiff has every right to recover possession from the defendant. Hence the plaintiff is also entitled to terminate the arrangement and recover possession of the suit property from the defendant/appellant herein. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed by the lower appellate court, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower appellate court, the defendant has come forward with this Second Appeal. 6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following question of law was framed for determination:— “Whether the defendant who was doing Thavul and Thalam service in the plaintiff/temple and enjoying certain properties in lieu of that service can claim to be a cultivating tenant under plaintiff/temple?” 7. Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant herein contends that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record, and as such the concurrent conclusion arrived at by them that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for by him, cannot be sustained. 8. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruchirapalli, dated 30th August, 1972. The plaintiff and the defendant are parties to the same. The rights of both parties have been correctly and completely discussed on the entire evidence adduced by both the parties in the said enquiry, and it has been held therein that the suit properties are the private lands of the plaintiff-temple and that the temple is entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta under S. 9(1) of the Act 30 of 1963. The claims of the service-doers including the defendant/appellant herein have been rejected. 9. P.W. 1, a clerk of the plaintiff-temple, would state that the defendant did not file any appeal against the order in Ex. A1 and that the said order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruchirapalli, has become final and conclusive. The claims of the service-doers including the defendant/appellant herein have been rejected. 9. P.W. 1, a clerk of the plaintiff-temple, would state that the defendant did not file any appeal against the order in Ex. A1 and that the said order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruchirapalli, has become final and conclusive. D W. 1 is the son of the defendant, and he would state that the defendants family is enjoying the suit lands for generations and relied on Ex. B17, the certified copy of the list of the properties given by the Collector, Tiruchirapalli, to the Manager of the temple on 21st July, 1842, Ex. B8 certified copy of Hukumnamah, dated 12th November, 1842 and Ex. B19 certified copy of the register of Inams, and also on Exs. B1 to B16 which are receipts for giving chathurbagam to the temple The above documents prove the possession of the defendant and his ancestors. But it was subject to the rights of the temple, and in any event, the title vested in the Government on the notified date. 10. Ex. B19 is the extract of the register of loams for T.D. No. 580. It is seen from Ex. B19 that the properties were granted for the support of Madhyarjuna Swami Pagoda. In Col. II it is noted that the grantor is not known and in Col. 14, the grantee is noted as Madhyarjuna Swami Pagoda, namely, the plaintiff herein. It is given in T.D. No. 585 and the lands inquest on have been enjoyed by 28 persons for different descriptions of Pagoda services they perform. These grants have been made as a private arrangement by the then trustees. In cases of neglect of service by the person to whom it is allotted, the trustees of the plaintiff-temple can resume the land. Originally the lands in question were dry lands. P.W. 1 states in his evidence that the Settlement Officer. Tiruchy has issued patta to the temple in question for the suit property and other properties under the original of Ex. A1. 11. The possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendant is only to render services of Thavul and Thalam so long as required by the plaintiff subject to the paying chathurbagam and poruppu at 6 marakkals per acre. A1. 11. The possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendant is only to render services of Thavul and Thalam so long as required by the plaintiff subject to the paying chathurbagam and poruppu at 6 marakkals per acre. In the instant case, the plaintiff having given notice of terminating the services of the defendant, the aggrieved defendant/appellant herein ought to have filed an appeal against the notice to the concerned authorities and get his appropriate remedy. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has filed an appeal to the H.R. & C.E. Board about this aspect. 12. The recitals in Ex. B19, extract of the register of Inams are of great value, even in the absence of the original grant. It is clear that the plaintiff temple is the grantee of the suit property in question, as seen from Ex. B19. The grant was found in favour of the temple and there can be no question of the defendant acquiring any proprietary right in question as against the temple. The defendant has not acquired any proprietary right in question as against the temple in a fiduciary capacity, and he cannot have prescribed title for it. 13. The properties in question have been converted into wet land somewhere in the year 1958, after the advent of the High level channel. Merely on the ground that the dry lands have been converted into wet lands by the advent of the high level channel, the defendant/appellant herein cannot claim right over the suit properties in question. The defendant/appellant herein was in possession of the suit land on behalf of the deity and he has been utilising the income therefrom for the purpose of the temple. The defendant was in possession of the suit land only because he is performing Thavul and Thalam service to the temple. It cannot confer any right in favour of the defendant over the lands. The defendant/appellant herein cannot contend that he was put in possession of the land under a permanent arrangement, since such an arrangement by the then trustees will not be binding on an institution. 14. The plaintiff-temple has title to the suit property and the defendant is in permissive possession of the same under an arrangement for a long time. The plaintiff has terminated the arrangement under the original of Ex. A-2. 14. The plaintiff-temple has title to the suit property and the defendant is in permissive possession of the same under an arrangement for a long time. The plaintiff has terminated the arrangement under the original of Ex. A-2. The definite plea of the defendant/appellant herein is that he is a service-doer paying chathurbagam to the plaintiff-temple. Since the possession of the defendant was a permissive one, the plaintiff is entitled to seek for possession of the suit land from the defendant/appellant. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the arrangement. 15. Admittedly, the defendant was in permissive possession of the suit property till the date of termination of the arrangement under the original of Ex. A-2 which was acknowledged by the defendant under Ex. A-3 on 24th November, 1975. The termination came into effect on 30th November, 1975. Since the occupation of the defendant from 1st December, 1975 is wrongful, the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits from 1st December, 1975 onwards. 16. Thus, on a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, both the Courts below have come to a concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff-temple/respondent herein is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property from the defendant/appellant herein. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 17. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.