Judgment :- The plaintiff church is the appellant. The suit for declaration consequential injunction and for mandatory injunction for removal of superstructure suit property has been dismissed. 2. As the learned trial Judge has pointed out most of the facts in the case are admitted The suit property is 29 cents of land in Survey No.15/1 in Aranthangi Thottam Originally it belonged to an independent landholder of the village, Sulochanambalpuram Chathiram. This land and other lands of the land-holder was in the management District Board. On 7.9.1929 the District Board has given a lease of the said lands in the plaintiff church. The plaintiff church has been periodically leasing out the lands tenants. Thus on 9.2.1946 the plaintiff church leased out a portion of the suit property Krishnaswami Thevar under Ex.A-5 and then on 1.1.1962 it executed a lease deed of another portion in favour of one Sathan under Ex.A-7. Then on 8.8.1962 the portion of the property was leased out in favour of Meiyappa Konar under Ex.A-8. It Krishnaswamy Thevar and Sathan have assigned their rights in favour of Velusamy Natarajan. Then Meiyappa Konar, Veluswamy and Natarajan have subsequently under 27, dated 12.3.1966, A-28, dated 25.4.1966, A-29, dated 26.4.1966, sold the superstructure put up by them to the defendant. In the meanwhile the village was notified on under Act 26 of 1963. Settlement proceedings were taken and the Assistant Officer granted patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of both the superstructure site. On appeal by the defendant the Settlement Officer dismissed the appeal. But further appeal to the Director of Settlements, he holding that the superstructure belongs the defendant, and the site viz., 29 cents belongs to the plaintiff church, issued joint The revision preferred before the Commissioner of Land Revenue was dismissed as barred, but however the Commissioner observed that it is open to the parties to establish their rights in the civil court. Therefore the suit. 3. The Church pleaded that both the site and the superstructure belong to the Church, on the other hand the defendant contended inter alia that he or his predecessors having put up the superstructure, under the provisions of the Act 26 of 1963, he is to both the superstructure and the site. 4. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues and answering all the issues, ultimately dismissed the suit. 4. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues and answering all the issues, ultimately dismissed the suit. The main finding of the trial court is that the defendant predecessor-in-title having put up the superstructure, under Secs.l5(4) and 15(5) Of 1963, he will be entitled to both the superstructure and the site on which it stands therefore the suit property belongs to the defendant. It is this finding alone which is now challenged in this appeal and therefore it necessary to go into the other points that were decided by the learned trial Judge. 5. Now, admittedly the superstructure has been put up either by the defendant predecessor-in-title before Act 26 of 1963 was notified. Now, Sec.15 of the Act Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1963, reads follows: “15. Vesting of buildings situated in Inam estates: (1) Every building situated within the is of an inam estate, which immediately before the notified date, belonged to any landholder thereof and was then being used by him as an office in connection with its administration and for no other purpose, shall vest in the Government, free of all encumbrances, with on and from the notified date. (2) Every building so situated which, immediately before the notified date belonged such landholder and the whole or principal part thereof was then in the occupation religious, educational or charitable institution shall also vest in the Government, free encumbrances, with effect on and from the notified date: Provided that when such institution ceases to exist, the building shall revert to landholder or if he is dead, to his heirs or legal representatives. (3) where any building so situated-- (a) which belonged to any such land-holder on the 1st day of July, 1960; and (b)(i) which on that date was being used by him as an office in connection with administration of the inam estate, and for no other purpose, or (ii) the whole or principal part whereof was on that date in the occupation of any religious, educational or charitable institution, has, after the 1st day of July, 1960 and before the notified date, been sold or made a gift of by the landholder or ceased to be used by him an office as aforesaid, or ceased to be in the occupation of such institution, the value of the building shall be assessed by the Tribunal in such manner as may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall pay to the Government such value cited in its office under sub Sec.36. (4) Every building other than a building referred to in sub-secs. (1), (2) and (3) shall with effect on and from the notified date, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date; but the Government shall be entitled, for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the inam estate in notified, (i) in every case to levy the appropriate assessment thereon; and (ii) in the case of a building which vests in a person other than a land-holder, also to the payments which such person was liable immediately before the notified date to make any land-holder in respect thereof, whether periodically or not and whether by way of rentotherwise, in so far as such payments may accrue due on or after the notified date. (5) In this section,” building “includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. (6).......” It is clear from a reading of sub-sec.(4) of Sec.15 that a building owned by a person immediately before the notified date shall vest in that person. Then as per sub building includes the site on which the superstructure stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. Therefore, the owner of the building in whom the building vests under Sec. 15(4) will also be the owner of the site as well as the land appurtenant thereto. Then as per sub building includes the site on which the superstructure stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. Therefore, the owner of the building in whom the building vests under Sec. 15(4) will also be the owner of the site as well as the land appurtenant thereto. It is therefore manifest that the tenant who owned the building before the notified date becomes the owner of both the building as well as the site with the appurtenant land. 6. From this it can be easily concluded that the suit land of 29 cents belongs to the defendant as per the provisions of the Act. The learned trial Judge has also relied on Somasundaram Pillai v. Dorairaj, (1979)1 M.L.J. 443 , in which case the facts are similar to the present case, and it has been held clearly therein that as per sub Sec.15 the person who is owning the building before the notified date will get that building vested in him, and in view of the definition of the building given in sub-sec.(S) he will also entitled to the site of that building and also the appurtenant land thereto. That decision has been followed in a subsequent decision in K.Vellappa Gounder and Sons by partner K.Vellappa Gounder v. K.S.Thirugnanas-ambandam Chettiar and others, 93L.W. 707. find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the judgment and decree of the trial court are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.