JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by certificate is from the Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal and rejecting the appellant's claim to occupancy rights in the suit land. Admittedly, the suit land belongs to Shri Jwalamukhi Amma Veru temple. Originally, it formed part of the Inam granted to the temple. After abolition of the Inam there was dispute between the present appellant and the temple as to whom the Patta should be issued. The Assistant Settlement Officer acting under section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act, albeit on concession by the appellant, granted the Patta to the temple. Having received the Patta, the temple sued the appellant for declaration of its rights and for possession by eviction of the appellant from the land. the appellant's objection having been over-ruled by the courts below, the High Court confirmed the same but granted the certificate. 2. Mr. K. Ramkumar, learned counsel for the appellant, frankly states that in,respect of only two plots the appellant earlier conceded the right of the temple to obtain Patta, but submits that in respect of other plots in the suit property, there could be no such concession. Learned counsel submits that the origin of the 'Devadayam' Inam land having not been known, it could not be categorised as service inam and as such the land would be ryoti land under section 3(16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, and if that be so, the appellant as tenant would have the right to continue as tenant as also the right to be treated as occupancy tenant for the purpose of prescription of his right towards ownership. 3. Counsel then argues that the land having been given by way of grant to the temple, it must be regarded as an absolute grant and not subject to resumption on failure to perform, any service and in that view of the matter, the assertion on the part of the temple that the land had always been utilised for the performance of Sahasrala Santarpanam at the time of Tantlu for the deity, and that the land as such could be regarded as a service inam, was not tenable. The learned counsel relies on Government of Tamil Nadu v. Ahobila Matam, (1987) 1 SCC 38 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, (1985) 4 SCC 10 . In the Ahobila , Matam's case under the Tamil Nadu Inam Assessments Act on the question whether the service tenure exemption was available to land held by the religious institution; O. Chinnappa Reddy,' J. speaking for the court, on the facts of that case and referring to Hindu Religious Endowments Board v. Koteswara Rao, AIR 1937 Madras 852, held that the proviso to Section 3(l) was inapplicable to lands held by religious institutions, and, therefore, the lands in that case were liable to full assessment. On that basis, it has been argued that the inam could be either to the temple; or to an officer to an individual and that while in case of Inam to an officer or to an individual, there could be a service inam, in case of inam to a temple, there could never be any possibility of a service inam. 4. The Ramalinga Samigal Madam's case (supra) under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, Sessions 64C, 3(d) and 11 on the question of civil court's jurisdiction it was held that after the Settlement Officer had decided to grant or refuse a patta it would not be a bar and would not exclude the civil court's jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land. On that basis it is argued that even though the appellant conceded the patta being issued to the Temple by the Assistant Settlement Officer in respect of the suit land, it would not debar him from arguing in his defence that under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code the civil court still has jurisdiction to decide the proper status of the land and to give him the rights due to him in accordance therewith under the law. 5. Mr. K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant compromised the suit instituted against him by the Maharaja of Venkatagiri as the Dharmakartha of the temple which amounted to his conceding the title of the temple. 5. Mr. K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant compromised the suit instituted against him by the Maharaja of Venkatagiri as the Dharmakartha of the temple which amounted to his conceding the title of the temple. Secondly, it is submitted, when the Assistant Settlement Officer was conducting the enquiry after abolition of inam as to who should be rightful title holder to the property, the appellant again conceded the title to the deity of the temple in respect of the suit land. Accordingly, it is submitted, the appellant having already conceded the title of the temple and Patta having been granted to the temple already, he has no right to object to the declaration of the title in favour of the temple and to obtain possession of the land on termination of his tenancy. It is stated by Mr. Subba Rao that the appellant has not been paying rent or damages since a long time. 6. The clinching question in the dispute would, therefore, be to decide as to whether the suit land shown in Inam Register as 'Devadayam' could be treated as Ryoti land under the Estates Land Act. Ryoti land is defined under section 1(16)(c) which excludes the continuing service tenure land from Ryoti land. If this land, therefore, cold be continuing service tenure land, the appellant could not have any claim to be treated as having occupancy right thereon. The practice of granting inam by different rulers and officers had been gone into in Madras by the Inam Commission of 1858 which found that there were various types of Inams, of which only the important types were recognised. Baden Powell in Land Systems of British India, Volume 111 at page 81 enumerated nine kinds of inams (classified according to their object or purpose). The first four kinds are: "(1) For religious institutions and services connected therewith. Nearly a million and a half acres are so assigned, including temples, pagodas, and mosques. The largest grants are in the southern districts. (2) For purposes of public utility. Such are, support of 'Chatrams' (places where refreshment is given gratuitously), water-pandals (drinking places), topes or groves, flower-gardens for temple service (nandavanam), schools (patshalas), for maintaining bridges, ponds and tanks, to. (3) 'Dasabandham' inams for the construction, maintenance, and repair of irrigation works in the Ceded Districts, in Kistna, Nellore, North Arcot and Salem. (2) For purposes of public utility. Such are, support of 'Chatrams' (places where refreshment is given gratuitously), water-pandals (drinking places), topes or groves, flower-gardens for temple service (nandavanam), schools (patshalas), for maintaining bridges, ponds and tanks, to. (3) 'Dasabandham' inams for the construction, maintenance, and repair of irrigation works in the Ceded Districts, in Kistna, Nellore, North Arcot and Salem. (4) To Brahmans and other religious persons for their maintenance called 'Bhatavritti,' and '(Muhammadan) 'Khairat.' The form nearly half the Inams of the Presidency and cover more than three and a half million acres." In case of the inams held for personal benefit the holder was allowed by the Inam Commission to enfranchise it, i.e., convert it into his own private property by payment of a moderate quit rent, or a single commutation sum equal to so many years' purchase of the quit-rent. The un-enfranchised inams continued. The inams for religious institutions and services connected therewith not enfranchised therefore continued. It can not, therefore, be accepted that there were no roams to temples and services connected therewith. The submission that there could never be a service inam granted to a t therefore, to be rejected. 7. In the instant case, the Assistant Settlement Officer, albeit on concession, in his order dated 7.2.1958 held that the land mentioned in the schedule thereto was held by Shri Jwalamukhi Amma Varu and that holder of the land shall have the same rights in the land and subject to the same liabilities as the Inamdar of a minor service roam in a Ryotwari village had in respect the against this order. Even so, we have proceeded on the basis that the civil court had jurisdiction and considered the facts of this case in view of what has been submitted by Mr. Ramkumar. We have not been shown anything towards prohibition of a service tenure being granted to a temple. We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no room for holding that the title as minor service inam could not have that into been conferred on the deity of the temple. Title having been conferred, the temple, in our view, has the right to sue the appellant for declaration of its right, title and interest over the land and to seek possession thereof. Title having been conferred, the temple, in our view, has the right to sue the appellant for declaration of its right, title and interest over the land and to seek possession thereof. The appellant having failed to prove that the land could be categorised as Ryoti land under the law, shall have no right to claim any right by virtue of his having been a tenant of land. 8. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, in the fats and circumstances we leave it to the parties to bear their own costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.