Judgment : This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 10. 1983 passed by the Sub Judge at Nagapattinam, in [I.A.T.] C.M.ANo.31 of 1982. That was an appeal preferred against the order 7. 19S2 passed by the Settlement Officer [S.P.IX], Thanjavur in SRI/MNL/80]. It is not necessary to state the history of the case. It is sufficient to refer to the decision of this Court in C.R.P.No.1184 of 1980. By the order dated 5th November, 1981 the said civil revision petition which was filed by the petitioner herein was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Settlement Officer with a direction to dispose of the petition under Sec.5 of Act 31 of 1983 and then take up the inquiry under Act 26 of 1963. It is pursuant to this order, the Settlement Officer took up the proceedings. By the order dated 7. 1982 in SRI/MNL/80, the Settlement Officer held that the land in question constituted a minor inam therefore the Assistant Settlement Officer shall take up action in pursuance of the said decision. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer, the respondent herein preferred (I.A.T.) C.M.A.No.31 of 1982 before the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam who is the Appellate Tribunal prescribed for the purpose. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that a Division Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion in respect of the very land is question in S.T.A.No.50 of 1960 and S.T.A.No.51 of 1960 and CM.A.No.17 of 1964 had held that Perumpugalur Thottam formed part of the village and therefore, it would bea part inam estate as defined under Act 26 of 1963. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, consequently, further action has now to be taken up under Act 26 of 1963. Therefore the respondent before the Subordinate Judge, has come up in this revision petition. 3. In the light of the contentions urged on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the estate in question can be considered to be part village inam estate. 4. As already pointed out, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that it is a part village inam estate. This finding he has arrived at on appreciation of the evidence on record. 5. 4. As already pointed out, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that it is a part village inam estate. This finding he has arrived at on appreciation of the evidence on record. 5. It may be relevant to notice that on the coming into force of Act 26 of 1963, the State Government in exercise of its power under Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 1 of the Madras Act 26 of 1963 issued a Notification bearing G.O.[P] 1119, Revenue, dated 30.3.1965, appointing the 1st May of 1965 as the date on which the provisions of Madras Act 26 of 1963 other than Secs.l, 2,4,5,7,8,56(3), 59,64,73,75 and 76 which have already come into force, shall come into force, in the inam estates specified in the schedule to the Notification. The inam estate in question is Perumpugalur Thottam. It is included in the said Notification at serial No.2 under the Taluk Nannilam in District Thanjavur. In order to sustain that Notification, what the State Government has to do is to show that the estate in question is on inam estate. Sec.2(7) of Act 26 of 1963 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, defines the expression ‘inam estate’ as meaning an existing inam estate or a new inam estate. Sec.2(9) of the Act defines the expression ‘new inam estate’ as meaning a part village inam estate or a Pudukottai inam estate. To avoid any ambiguity the Act also further defines the expression ‘part village inam estate’ under Sec.2(l) as follows: "Part village inam estate means a part of a village (including a part of a village in the merged territory of Pudukottai) (but not including such of the inam areas in the said territory as are specified in Schedule 1-A) the grant of which part has been under, confirmed or recognized by the Government, notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, such part has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors-in-title of the grantee or grantees". Explanation I:(a) Where the grant of a part of a village as an inam is expressed to be a specified fraction of, or a specified number of snares in, a village such part shall be deemed to be a part village inam estate notwithstanding that such grant refers also to the extent of such part in terms of acreage or conies or of other local equivalent. (b) Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be only in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent, the area which forms the subject-matter of the grant shall not be deemed to be a part village inam estate [Explanation 1-b part of a Villages granted in inam shall be deemed to be a part village inam estate] notwithstanding that different parts of such part village were granted, confirmed or recognized on different dates or by different title-deeds or in favour of different persons". The contention of the revision petitioner is that the land in question is in terms of acreage or cawnies and therefore, it cannot at all be considered to be a part village and it fails under Explanation (]-b) as such, it is not a part village inam estate and consequently, it cannot be held to be.an inam estate. Therefore, it is wrongly included in the Notification. On the contrary, it is the contention of the respondents herein that it is not at all open to the revision petitioner now to contend that the estate in question is not part village inam, estate, as this has been concluded in an earlier proceeding between the parties wherein a specific finding has been recorded that the estate in question is a part of major village of that same. In addition, it is also the contention of the revision petitioner that when the Settlement Officer recorded finding that the land in question was not an inam estate, but it is a minor inam, as such , it did not fall under the provisions of the Act and the state did not challenge that finding, whereas the respondents herein who claim to be the tenants of the land, challenged that finding, but in the absence of the challenge to it by the State which alone can be considered to be an aggrieved party with record-to such finding, the respondents herein cannot successfully challenge the same and the appeal preferred by them should be held to be not maintainable. 6. I will take up the last contention first. It is relevant to notice that throughout, the respondents have been the parties to the proceedings. They were the parties to the C.R.P.No.1184 of 1980, which was allowed by this Court on 11. 6. I will take up the last contention first. It is relevant to notice that throughout, the respondents have been the parties to the proceedings. They were the parties to the C.R.P.No.1184 of 1980, which was allowed by this Court on 11. 1981 with a direction to determine first the nature of the inam estate and then proceed further in accordance with such determination. Secondly, it is also not possible to hold that respondents do not have any interest in the estate in question. They claim to be the tenants cultivating the land in question and as such claim that they should be granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of Sec.10 read with Sec.12 of the Act. The fact that the State Government did not go up in appeal against the order dated 7. 1982 of the Settlement Officer, did not in any way effect the right of the respondents to challenge the order of the settlement officer dated 7. 1982, because that order affected the right of the respondents to claim ryotwari patta under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 12 of the Act. Therefore, they were entitled to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer including the finding recorded therein. Hence, I do not find any substance in this contention. It is accordingly rejected. 7. As faras the first contention is concerned, I have already adverted to the definition of the relevant expressions used in the Act. On an earlier occasion, in S.T.A.Nos.50 and 51 of 1960 and C.M.A.No.17 of 1964 the matter had come up before this Court pertaining to the land in question under the provisions of Act XXX of 1956, against the decision of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, dated 24. 1959 in O.A.No.49 of 1957. The question that came up for consideration in that case, was as to whatsoever Perumpugalur Thottam in question was an inam village or not. On considering the relevant evidence that was placed in the case, this Court observed as follows: “There is, however, this this to be noticed about Perumpugalur Thottam. Its extent, as noted above, is only about 48 acres. It is not very often that one finds on entire Village of that extent of land. Further, the word” Thottam “ which distinguished the areas of about 48 acres, now in question, is not always indicative of village. Its extent, as noted above, is only about 48 acres. It is not very often that one finds on entire Village of that extent of land. Further, the word” Thottam “ which distinguished the areas of about 48 acres, now in question, is not always indicative of village. As pointed out by a Bench of this Court in S.T.A.No.27 of 1961, the word” Thottam “ generally means a garden. It is no doubt true that the word sometimes forms part of the proper name of a village. But, when one finds as in this case, a major village called Perumpugalur and also an area distinguished an Perumpugalur Thottam, prima facie it would mean that the latter should only be a part of the main village or a hamlet attached thereto. Again, it must not be forgotten that it is the tenant that has taken the initiative in this case of filing the application before the Tribunal saying that the area in question is an inam estate. As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court, in Bhavanarayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1715, the onus of proof that it is an inam estate will be on the tenant in the present case. We have got to see whether he has discharged that onus. The original grant is not available.but we have an extract from the Inam fair Register of the ‘Inams in the village of Perumpugalur” “Col (8) dealing with the description of the inam, states that it was given for the expenses of Sri Thiagarajaswami Pagoda at Tiruvarur, the worship to be conducted being called” Annadhana Kattalai“. Column 12 refers to the fact that no documents were produced before the Inam Commission and that it was stated that the grant was lost during the time of war. Column 21 says, ”The fasli 1938, this Inam Village was measured in two plots named Perumpugalur Thottam and Kannu Thottam, with distinct numbers in each. The two though evidently parts of the same village, are situated one on each side of a channel. Hence, they appear to have been measured separately......The extent quoted in the Register of 1809 is an per accounts in the Devasthanam and it consists of only of wet and dry, no poramboke being entered. It is not at all likely that there could be a village without any poramboke. Hence, they appear to have been measured separately......The extent quoted in the Register of 1809 is an per accounts in the Devasthanam and it consists of only of wet and dry, no poramboke being entered. It is not at all likely that there could be a village without any poramboke. The Devasthanam accounts recorded generally only the lands from which any property was derived. The present extent exceeds the former imperfect as it is by less than the average of the excess in the ayan lands of 3 out of the 4 adjoining villages, there being no excess in the other, and so the difference is not chargeable." The foregoing remarks do certainly support the contention that the area in question was regarded as a Village, at any rate, at the time of the Inam Commission. If there be no other evidence in the case, one can reasonably conclude that the subject matter of the grant must have been a village even at the time of the grant. But where there is such evidence. The recitals in the Inam Fair Register, important as they are, can be regarded as conclusive on the question. In the present case, there are a number of unimpeachable documents, all interior to the enquiry. The lands forming the inam, were as we said, given at the time of the ancient Rajahs of Tanjore, for the performance of the services to the temple. "After the extinction of the line of the Rajahs, they were taken over by the East India Company. It appears that the company allowed these lands to be cultivated by the Atheenakartha or Pandarasannadhi, in charge of the Kattalai, on receiving from him a muchalikka. We have in evidence a number of muchalikka. In all such cases, the Atheenakartha or Pandarasannadhi, first have a draft of what is called proposal muchalikka. Then, on approval as Ijara muchalikka was executed for the due performance of the obligations. Along with the Ijara muchalikka the Atheenakartha or Pandarasannadhi, obtained and gave a guarantee (or what has been called a security muchalikka). The first of the muchalikka is Ex.A-5 dated 29. 1920. That is an Ijara muchalikka. Its corresponding security muchalikka is Ex.A-6 executed by one Appavayya. Neither of these two documents refers to Perumpugalur Thot-tam as a Village. The area in question was merely referred to as Perumpugalur Thottam and Kannu Thoppu. The first of the muchalikka is Ex.A-5 dated 29. 1920. That is an Ijara muchalikka. Its corresponding security muchalikka is Ex.A-6 executed by one Appavayya. Neither of these two documents refers to Perumpugalur Thot-tam as a Village. The area in question was merely referred to as Perumpugalur Thottam and Kannu Thoppu. In the year 1833, we have got all the "three types of muchalikkas. Ex.A-9 is the proposal muchalikka and itis dated 18-7-1823. That describes the areas now in question as "Sarvamonia gramam-Perumpugalur Thottam," This description undoubtedly supports the case of the tenant that what was understood as forming the subject-matter of the grant, was a village. But the Ijara muchalikka does not incorporate this description of the village. That has been executed by the same person Seshappiyan in favour of the East India Company. That describes that poverty as only "Sarvamaniam Perumpugalur Thottam". The security muchalikka corresponding to Ex.A-11, is Ex.A-10 which gives the same description. In the same year, we have got Ex.A-12 executed by one Seshappiyan. That too does not describe Perumpugalur Thottam as a village. Then, in the year 1937, we have got Ex.A-13 the proposal muchalikka. Ex.A-14 the Ijara muchalikka and Ex.A-15 the security muchalikkas. None of them refers to the area in question as a village". Ultimately, this Court recorded the following: "On a view of the entire evidence in the case, we are of opinion that it has not been satisfactorily established by the tenant that the "original grant was of a village. The Tribunal came to a contrary conclusion mainly by reason of the entry contained in Column 21 of the Fair Inam Register to which we have made reference earlier and also on the recital in Ex.A-22. So far as the former documents is concerned, we are of opinion that the description of Perumpugalur Thottam as a Village can only prima facie indicate the character of the property at the time of the Inam Commission. In regard to the second document. We have pointed out that the Tribunal was under a misapprehension when it held that the descriptive words "Sarvamaniam Village" applied to Perumpugalur Thottam as well. We cannot therefore accept the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. In our view, Perumpugalur Thottam should be regarded as only part of a major village of that name and that the grant thereof was a minor inam. We cannot therefore accept the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. In our view, Perumpugalur Thottam should be regarded as only part of a major village of that name and that the grant thereof was a minor inam. It will therefore neither be an inam, much less an inam estate. The appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed with costs", [emphasis supplie]. This finding became final, as that decision of this Court was not challenged. Therefore, the finding that has became final in between the parties, is to the effect that Perumpugalur Thottam should be regarded only part of a major village of that name and the grant thereof was a minor inam. That under the provisions of Act 26 of 1963, it was not an inam village, but it was a minor inam, is not relevant for our purpose. What is relevant for our purpose. What is relevant is the finding recorded herein that it was only a part of major village of that name. It is this finding which the settlement officer ignored on the ground that it was recorded in a proceeding under a different enactment and came to the conclusion that it was not an inam estate. However, the Appellate Authority on taking into consideration the finding recorded by the High Court in S.T.A.Nos.50 and 51 of 1960 and C.M.A.No.17 of 1964, which was produced as Ex.P-6 and also the other evidence, came to the conclusion that Perumpugalur Thottam is a part village Inam estate and not a minor inam. this finding which is based upon the evidence on record, cannot be held to suffer from any infirmity. This is a revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The finding recorded by the Tribunal below on appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be disturbed in a revision as it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record, unless it touches or affects the jurisdiction of the authority or it is perverse. When once it is held that the finding of the Tribunal that it is a part village inam, there is no difficulty is holding that it is an inam estate, because inam estate means an existing inam estate or a new inam estate. Now inam estate means a part village inam estate or Pudukottai estate. The inam in question has been held to be a part inam. Now inam estate means a part village inam estate or Pudukottai estate. The inam in question has been held to be a part inam. Therefore, it satisfies the definition as contained in Sec.3(ll) of the Act. It is not necessary to go into the question about the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Sathya Narayana Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1977)1 M.L.J. 302 , as for our purpose, a decision of the Full Bench in Akkaloi Ammani Chatram v. State, A.I.R. 1980 Mad. 149, is sufficient. In that decisions, the expressions part village inam estate has been considered and it has been held as follows: “We have already extracted the provisions of Sec.2(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, along with the explanation. The main part of the definition states that part village inam estate means ‘a part of a village - the grant of which part has been made, confirmed or recognised by the Government.....”. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘pan’ as given in the dictionaries is as follows: The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th Edn. states that ‘part’ means- “Some but not all of a thing or number of things, portion allotted, share.” The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the following meanings for the word ‘part’. “Portion of a whole-(l) that which with another or other makes up a whole, a certain amount, but not all of anything or number of things, a portion, division, section, element, constituent, place.” Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, Revised Edn., gives the following means for the word ‘part’ as far as is relevant for the present purpose. “Something less than the whole, a portion; that which along with others makes up, has made up or may at sometime make up a whole constituent; a member or ogan,anequal quantity share.” The word ‘part’ is not a word of art or a technical term conveying a special meaning. There is nothing in the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, or in the context of the definition of the term “part village inam estate” justifying giving to the expression “part” occurring therein a meaning other than the dictionary meaning, referred to above. Therefore, even on the basis that Ex.A-1 constituted a grant and the loads covered by Ex.A-3 are situate in Maharajasamudram village will be a grant of a part of the village. Therefore, even on the basis that Ex.A-1 constituted a grant and the loads covered by Ex.A-3 are situate in Maharajasamudram village will be a grant of a part of the village. The only grant that is taken away from the scene of this definition is what is contained in Explanation 1 (b) to Sec.2(ii) and that explanation will come into operation only where a grant as an inam is expressed to be only in terms of acres or conies or of other local equivalent. As a matter of fact, the very Explanation 1(b) will justify the giving of the normal meaning to the word “part” occurring in Sec. 2(ii). The language of Explanation 1(b) to Sec.2(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, as already extracted reads- “Where a grant as an inam is expressed to be only in terms of acreage or cawnies, or of other local equivalent, the area which forms the subject matter of the grant shall not be deemed to be a part village in an estate.” The very deeming provision will make it clear that but for the explanation, the grant would fall within the scope of the definition itself. Therefore, if Explanation 1(b) had not been there, even where the grant as an inam is expressed to be only in terms of acreage or cawnies or of other local equivalent, it will still mean a part village in an estate as defined in Sec.2(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and by creating a fiction in Explanation 1(b), the said grant is taken out of the definition of a part village inam estate. Similarly Explanation II also will support our conclusion that the word part should be given its ordinary meaning." For the reasons stated above, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.