Judgment :- MISHRA, J. 1. One of the respondents who was benefited by a suo motu enquiry by the settlement Tahsildar III (SE), Tiruchirapalli dated 27.8.1969 and who, according to the Tahsildar, was entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), has preferred this appeal against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli under S. 30 (1) of Act 30 of 1963. The Tahsildar initiated suo motu enquiry in respect of certain lands situated in Vellitnirumutham Village within the municipal limits of the town of Srirangam in Tiruchirapalli District. He had directed the said enquiry in respect of the lands that were minor inams granted as Devadayam for the support of the Pagoda of Sri Ranganathaswami at Srirangam and confirmed by the Government in T.D. No. 1027. According to the Tahsildar, these lands were notified under S. 1 (4) of the Act and on the appointed date, that is to say, 15.2.1965, on which date the inam tenure in respect of these lands stood abolished the lands vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. He appeared, however, to take the view that the answer as to who was entitled to a patta depended upon the answer to the question whether the grant in favour of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam was of both Melvaram and Kudivaram or of the Melvaram alone. According to him, the grant to the Devasthanam in T.D. No. 1027 was of the Melvaram only. He found, in particular, that those who were holding or were in possession thereof were the Kudivaramdars and were accordingly entitled to ryoti patta. The appeal on behalf of the Idol was preferred by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam before the Tribunal, which eventually was heard by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, who constituted the tribunal. The Tribunal has found that there is nothing to hold contrary to presumption arising under S. 44 of the Act that an inam consisted of Melvaram only and accordingly found that the Tahsildar has committed error, both of fact and law, in taking the view that the occupiers of the building upon such inam lands were Kudivaramdars. The Tribunal has found that the patta under the Act is granted to the temple under S. 8 (2)(ii) of the Act. 2. The Tribunal has found that the patta under the Act is granted to the temple under S. 8 (2)(ii) of the Act. 2. Before the Abolition Acts (i) Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (Act 26 of 1963) and (ii) Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (30 of 1963) and some other Acts, inam estates in Tamil Nadu Inams fell into two broad classes, viz., (i) Major inams and (ii) Minor inams, When the grant was of the whole village it was called a major inam. When the grant was not of a village but of isolated fields or blocks of land in a village or share or shares in a v illage, that is a grant of something less than a village, it was known as a minor inam. The word “inam” by itself is an Arabic word introduced in India after the Muhammadan conquest, the term used before that being “Manyam”. The two expressions commonly used in regard to land tenures in the State of Madras (Now Tamil Nadu) were Melvaram and Kudivaram. Without going into the history and origin of inam tenures to understand the meaning of the two expressions, we may refer to a Bench decision of this court in M.K. Subbachariar and others v. State of Madras by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others , 80 L.W. 184 = 1967 I MLJ 206, wherein it has been pointed out that the essence of an inam is that there should be a grant or gift, a favour by the grantor of land of Melvaram also, or gift or giving up of Melvaram in favour of the holder of the land, that is the Kudivaramdar, or it may be an assignment of melvaram to a person not in occupation of the land. The grant or assignment of Melvaram may be the entirely of Melvaram or a share of fraction therein. In order to constitute a grant an inam, the mere use of the expression “inam” or “gift” is wholly inconclusive unless along with that expression we find an indication that the grantee was to enjoy the land either totally free of rent or to have partial r emission of the Government share of the revenue. Strictly the sovereigns right to collect a share of the produce from the cultivated land is known by the name Kudivaram. 3. Strictly the sovereigns right to collect a share of the produce from the cultivated land is known by the name Kudivaram. 3. Inam whether major or minor, thus, is a relinquishment of the sovereigns right to collect a share of the produce from the cultivated land, that is to say, a grant or gift by way of inam may also be an assignment of Melvaram to a person not in occupation of the land. The grantor of land may create this in such a person not in occupation of the land by first giving to him Kudivaram rights and simultaneously assigning to him melvaram, that is to say, the right which the grantor possessed to collect a share of the produce whether in cash or in kind. The two Major Abolition Acts, however, abolished such rights in land tenures which empowered a certain person to collect a share of the produce from the cultivated land or from the ryot or the cultivator and vested this right into the Government with effect from the appointed date. It is conceded in the instant case, however, that there has been minor inams in the lands claimed by the appellant herein in favour of Sri Ranganathaswamy at Srirangam and confirmed by the Government in T.D. No. 1027, S. 44 of Act 30 of 1963 which reads as follows: “Presumption in the case of service inam, in proceedings under this Act relating to any inam granted for the benefit of any religious, educational or charitable institution or granted to any individual for rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution or for the purpose of rendering any other service it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the inam consists not merely of a grant of the Melvaram in the land but also the Kudivaram therein”. Sub-S. (1) of S. 8 of Act 30 of 1963 provides, subject to the provisions of sub-S. (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the Kudivaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not, shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Exception to this is, however, made by provisions in Sub-S. (2) of S. 8 which reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-S. (1) in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), and in the Tamil Nadu Transferred Territory) Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1959) the following provisions shall apply in case of lands in an Iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity:— (i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or persons deriving rights through him, had been in exclusive possession of such land (a) for a continuous period of sixty years immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960 such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land: (b) for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960 such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta if he pays as consideration to the Government in such manner and in such number of instalments as may be prescribed, an amount equal to twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the schedule and the land revenue due on such land: (ii) in the case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-Section, “Land Revenue” means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water cess and additional water cess. (iii) Any arrear of the amount due from any person under Clauses (i) (b) of sub S. (2) shall be recovered together with such interest as may be prescribed as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (iii) Any arrear of the amount due from any person under Clauses (i) (b) of sub S. (2) shall be recovered together with such interest as may be prescribed as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (iv) The Government shall, within such period as may be prescribed pay to the institution concerned in one lumpsum the amount specified in Clause (i) (b) of sub S. (2) and such payment shall be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (v) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of ryotwari patta under sub-S. (1) or (2) shall be subject to the provisions of S. 21”. The cases which are not covered by S. 8 are dealt with in S. 9 of the Act, which is a provision extending the benefits of ryotwari rights to such persons who were cultivating the land but were not having the Kudivaram or were in possession thereof without being Kudivaramdars. A close examination of the scheme of the Act along with the scheme of the Inams Estates Abolition Act reveals that Kudivaram can be a right available only to a cultivator of the land or who can genuinely be called a ryot and such right alone is protected for which a ryotwari patta is contemplated and once such a patta is granted to any person, whether he was an inamdar or not, he is liable to pay revenue to the Government. S. 13 of the Act says, every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately, before that day but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls to levy the appropriate assessment thereon, Sub-S. (2) to S. 13 says, in this Section ‘building’ includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that the inam granted to the temple consisted of Melvaram only. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that the inam granted to the temple consisted of Melvaram only. The appellant has been in possession of the building on the appointed day as the owner and thus strictly only on the basis of the right under the inam and Devasthanam could not claim the ownership of the building and accordingly patta for the land in question. The Tribunal has, however, found as follows: It is beyond controversy that the lands in question are covered by title deed 1027. It is equally beyond controversy that the inam covered by this title deed was granted for the support of Sri Ranganathaswami Temple at Srirangam viz., the appellant herein. To find that the grant to the appellant consisted of Melvaram only, the Settlement Tahsildar has placed much reliance on Ex. P1 which is said to be a true copy of the title deed. It is recited therein that the inam consisted of the right to the Government revenue on land. On the basis of this the Settlement Tahsildar has held that there was sufficient indication to the effect that the appellant temple owned Melvaram only. But this conclusion is not very sound. There is this. Ex. P1 is not the original title deed. It purports to be true copy signed by the Executive Officer of the appellant. There is no knowing if it is really a true copy of the title deed. It is not readily known what happened to the original. It is not known how, Ex. P1 was admitted in evidence without any formal proof even. I am of the view that Ex. P1 is of doubtful probative value from the mere recital taken out of its contact. It may not be safe to hold that the temple owned melvaram only. However, to find out the nature of the inam we have on the record Ex. P2 the extract from the inam fair register. As is well known the entries in Fair Inam Register are of great value and in the absence of any other evidence to disprove the entries they are entitled to much value as a piece of evidence to ascertain the nature of the inam. In column 2 it is described, Devadayam Inam. In column 3 to 7 the lands are described with number and extent. In column 2 it is described, Devadayam Inam. In column 3 to 7 the lands are described with number and extent. In column 8 it is mentioned that the Inam was granted for the support of the pagoda of Ranganathaswami at Srirangam now kept up. In column 10 it is stated, the soil of these lands is of the best improved quality; they form valuable gardens charged with 1 rate of the group, it being Rs. 3-8-0 per acre. As regards the particulars of the present owner, it is mentioned Srirangam Ranganathaswami Koil inam managers Periasami Mudahar etc. In column 21 it is mentioned, the lands are held by the pagoda in as much as the pagoda managers levy a pagadi or rent from each renter or cultivator or the lands. The aggregate rent of fasli 1274 amounts to Rs. 491-7-9 which is, of course, appropriated for the support of the pagoda. It is mentioned therein, the cultivators or holders of these lands pay pagudi or rent to the pagoda in the same way as the circar ryot pay assessment to the Government for ayan lands the pagudi being raised or lowered at the pleasure of the managers according to the circumstances. In column 22 it is mentioned, confirmed as recommended. Title Deed 1027’. It is on the basis of these, in particular and certain attending circumstances, that learned counsel for the appellant has suggested that appellants possession on payment of rent for service of the Devasthanam is that of a ryot and none else. He has, accordingly, been found by the Tahsildar to be entitled to a ryoti patta. The Tribunal has committed an error of law in not accepting the above. Once the contents of Ex. P2 are not disputed and it is conceded that the inam was for the service of the Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy at Srirangam, there is no escape from the presumption in S. 44 of the Act, which is a clear prescription that unless the contrary is proved that the inam consisted of Melvaram alone, the presumption is that it is a grant of the Melvaram, as well as, Kudivaram. S. 13 of the Act has contemplated vesting of buildings within the limits of the inam lands in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed day. S. 13 of the Act has contemplated vesting of buildings within the limits of the inam lands in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed day. The building includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. It is applicable not to a person who is the owner of the building alone but to a person who is the owner of both the site and the building. (See AIR 1974 Mad. 199 ). 5. It is, indeed, necessary to understand that “land” in S. 3 of the Act read in conjunction with S. 9 will not include the site on which the building is situate. Ryotwari pattas are issued under S. 8 or S. 9 with respect to cultivable lands in the inam estate and ground rent patta is appropriate only to the case of non-cultivable lands such as house sites. The Act, thus will not extend to a claim in a building outside of the claim as a Kudivaramdar and it is conceded, atleast, it is not shown to us to take any other view, that the appellant herein has no Kudivaram in the site of the building, that is to say, the land. The Tribunal has decided that the Idol is entitled to the patta in terms of S. 8 (1) of the Act read with S. 44 thereof and the appellants and/or any other person has not been able to show that he qualified under any of the Clauses under, S. 8 (2) of the Act. There is no error in the above conclusions of the tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without costs.