Judgment :- RAJU, J. 1. The above appeals have been argued together by the learned counsel for the appellants, since they involve identical issues and consequently they are dealt with together. 2. S.T.A. No. 13/85 has been filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryatwari) Act, 1963, Tamil Nadu Act 30/63 against the order of the Inams Abolition Tribunal (Sub Court), Cuddalore, dated 30.11.1983 in S.T.A. No. 37/89 where under the Tribunal came to confirm the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, dt. 31.3.1979 granting patta in respect of the lands in question in favour of Sri. Adhikesava Perumal Temple represented by the hereditary trustee for the time being under Section 11(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The lands in question are disputably minor inams lands covered by T.S. No. 1119 of T. Udayar and a suo motu enquiry was conducted initially after the abolition of the inam under Tamil Nadu Act 30/63 by the settlement Tahsildar, VII, Tanjore, By his proceedings dt. 1.11.1979 he held that it was a service inam and granted patta in favour of Krishnamurthy Bhattachariar, son of Vedantha Bhattachariar under Section 8(2)(ii) subject to the conditions laid down in section 21(3) of the Act. This order was challenged by competing claimant by name Sundaramurthy Pandithar claiming patta in respect of certain properties in his capacity as a piper of the Temple. The Tribunal in I.R.T. No. 5/76 by an order dt. 31.7.1976 set aside the orders dt. 1.11.1970 and remanded the matter to the original Authority for consideration afresh. The Assistance Settlement Officer, who became the competent Authority by then, took up the matter on his file and conducted a full-fledged enquiry and by his proceedings dt. 9.11.1976 while rejecting the claim projected by Sundaramurthy Pandithar, held that the grant was really in favour of the institution and directed the grant of patta under Section 11(2)(b) of the Temple represented by the hereditary trustee. This order was again challenged by Krishnamurthy Bhattachariar before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 2/77. The Tribunal once again by its order dt. 16.11.1977 and set aside the order of the authority below and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer with a direction to held fresh enquiry by giving Opportunities to all the authorities concerned to let in fresh and further evidence and dispose of the case according to law. The Tribunal once again by its order dt. 16.11.1977 and set aside the order of the authority below and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer with a direction to held fresh enquiry by giving Opportunities to all the authorities concerned to let in fresh and further evidence and dispose of the case according to law. Two documents, which were filed as additional evidence at the appellate stage before the Tribunal, were also directed to be considered, after giving opportunity to the H.R. & C.E. Department also. Thereupon, the matter has been taken up for consideration by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, and after considering the entire materials on record and also construing that the grant in question, the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dt. 31.1.1979 held that the grant was really in favour of the institution Sri Athikesava Perumal Temple and that the appellants predecessor-in-interest were only looking after and administering the same as hereditary trustee-cum-archakas and that the grant was not in favour of any individual, on condition of rendering services. As a matter of fact, in arriving at such a conclusion, the Assistant Settlement Officer placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sundara Battar v. W. Ramakrishna Naidu ((1962) 75 L.W. 485) and also the manner of enjoyment of the properties at the relevant points of time. Aggrieved Krishnamurthy Bhattachariar filed an appeal in I.A.T.A. No. 37/79 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal at Cuddalore and the Tribunal also confirmed the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, after exhaustive consideration of the matter in the light of the original grant and the terms thereof as disclosed from the copy of the inam fair register marked in the proceedings. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record and it is those legal representatives of the original appellant, who have filed the above appeal. 3. S.T.A. No. 14/85 :— The above appeal has been filled under Tamil Nadu Act 38/1963 against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Cuddalore, in I.A.T.A. No. 38/1979, whereunder the Tribunal, chose to confirm the orders of the Assistant/Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, dated 31.1.1979 granting patta in respect of the lands in question in favour of Sri Marudheeswarar Temple represented by its hereditary trustee for the time being. The lands in disputes in this appeal are indisputably minor inam lands covered by T.D. No. 1 118 of T. Udayar and after the abolition of the inam under the Act, the Settlement Tahsildar VII, Tanjore, initiated suo motu enquiry under the Act and by his proceedings dt. 1.11.1979 granted the patta in favour of Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal under Section 8 (2)(ii) of the Act, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 21(3) of the Act on the view that the grant was a service inam. The said order was challenged by one Sundaramurthy Pandithar claiming patta in respect of certain properties as a piper of the Temple and the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 4/76 by its order dated 31.7.1976 set aside the earlier orders passed by the Settlement Tahsildar and remitted the matter for consideration afresh. The Assistant Settlement Officer, who took up the matter to file, on his becoming the competent authority, made a full-fledged enquiry and by his order dt. 9.11.1976 not only rejected the claim of Thiru Sundaramurthy Pandithar, but also held that the grant was really in favour of the institution and directed the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (2)(b) read with Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act in favour of the Temple represented by its hereditary trustee. Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal felt aggrieved by the said order, challenged the order before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Cuddalore, in I.A.T.A. No. 1/77. The Tribunal by its order dt. 15-11-1977 set aside the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded the matter afresh to the Assistant Settlement Officer with a direction to hold fresh enquiry by giving opportunities to all the parties concerned to let in fresh and further evidence and to dispose of the case according to law. A direction was also issued to give an opportunity to the H.R. & C.E. Department to make its representation in the matter. Thereupon, the matter has been taken over by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, he having been notified for the purpose. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, by his order dt. A direction was also issued to give an opportunity to the H.R. & C.E. Department to make its representation in the matter. Thereupon, the matter has been taken over by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, he having been notified for the purpose. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, by his order dt. 31.1.1979 elaborately considered the entire materials produced including the extract of the inam fair register and came to the conclusion that the grant was really in favour of the temple and that Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal was only administering the lands in his capacity as the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka and also adverted to the manner of administration of the land all along and upheld the claim of the institution. Aggrieved Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal pursued the matter before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 38/79. Sundaramurthy Pandhithar also, aggrieved against the denial of his claim, as a piper to a portion of the land filed I.A.T.A. No. 84/79. Both these appeals were heard together and by a common order dated 30.11.1983, the Tribunal, after an elaborate consideration of the entire materials on record including the extract of the inam fair register and also taking into account certain adjudications made by the Civil Court marked as exhibits in the proceedings, confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing the grant of patta in favour of the institution represented by its hereditary trustee. Aggrieved, the appellant before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 38/79 filed the above appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives have been brought on record to prosecute the matter further. It is worth noticing at this stage that Sundaramurthy Pandithar has not chosen to file himself any appeal before this Court against the rejection of his appeal before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 84 of 1979. Therefore, for all purpose the claim of Sundaramurthy Pandithar needs no consideration about his entitlement for patta in this appeal. 4. Mr. Vanchinathan, learned counsel for the appellants in both the above appeals, vehemently contended that the authorities below have misconstrued the nature of the grant and that the real nature of the grant is to the ancestors respective of the appellants for rendering service in the respective temples in question and therefore they alone are entitled to patta and consequently the patta granted in favour of the temples cannot be sustained. Argued the learned counsel further that the remission was made by the Tribunal below only on the appeals filled by Sundaramurthy Pandhithar and therefore the appellants claim was required to be considered only vis-a-vis the claims of Sundaramurthy Pandhithar and that it was not open to the Assistant Settlement Officer to reopen the entire matter and to decide whether the temples as such were entitled to the grant of patta. The Counsel for Sundaramurthy Pandithar, who was one of the respondents in the appeals, could not make any substantial claim in his favour and he was satisfied with a merely opposing the claim of the appellants for the grants in their favour. The learned Government Advocate made submissions in favour of the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Cuddalore who was impleaded as party respondent. The learned Government Advocate adopted the reasons assigned by the authorities below and contended that the orders are well-merited and did not call for any interference in these appeals. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of either parties by the learned counsel appearing on either side. We have looked into the relevant records received by this Court containing the extract of the inam fair register as also some of the earlier proceedings in the form of certified copies of the judgements of the civil court marked in evidence during the course of fresh enquiry. We are of the view that there are absolutely no merits in the above appeals. 6. It is appropriate that the submission of the learned counsel of the appellants about the scope and extent of the remission enquiry and the grievance made about the entire matter being considered by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, be taken at the first instance. The facts set out supra would go to show that in both above cases, the archaka himself at all relevant points of time happened to be the hereditary trustee also. In such cases, if really the archaka who had a dual role, is ascertaining his own claim as against that of his own institution, he would have apprised the authorities below or to the H.R. & C.E. Department about the position so that the Department could indicate the rights of the religious institutions and he could not have himself asserted rights in himself to the detriment of the institution. The order passed without the temples and the details being represented properly, could not be said to be a valid order in law and any such proceedings would be only void ab initio and non-est in the eye of law. Even that apart, such an infirmity, if any, which existed when pursuant the first order of remission the Assistant Settlements Officer passed an order holding a denovo enquiry and granted patta in favour of the institution, the appellant predecessor-in-interest have filed appeals before the Tribunal for the second time and the Tribunal at that stage, during the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal, noticed the infirmity about the absence of proper representation of the institution and deity before the authorities below and issued special directions to the Assistant settlement Officer to not only consider the matter afresh, but also issue notices to the H.R. & C.E. Department to take care of the interests of the institution. In view of the second round of orders passed by the Tribunal, it is futile for the appellants to still persist that the enquiry in the remission proceedings must have been a limited enquiry. With reference to the claim of the appellants vis-a-vis only Sundaramurthy Pandithar. It is useful at this stage to point out also that the appellants predecessor-in-interest has not chosen to challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal in the second round of proceedings made on appeals filed by the appellants predecessor-in-interest, before this Court in the manner permissible and if that be the position, it does not lie in their mouth now to contend to the contrary and attempt to defeat the legitimate interests of the institution. 7. As for the claim of the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and about the nature and character of the grant, namely, whether it was in favour of the institution or in favour of an individual burdened with the condition of service, we have no hesitation to reject the claim. 7. As for the claim of the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and about the nature and character of the grant, namely, whether it was in favour of the institution or in favour of an individual burdened with the condition of service, we have no hesitation to reject the claim. Both the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, as also the learned Tribunal below have elaborately considered the entries in the extract of the inam fair register disclosing the terms and conditions subject to which the grant has been confirmed and the earlier proceedings before the Civil Court between appellants predecessor-in-interest and the H.R. & C.E. Department, which go to show beyond doubt that the grant was only in favour of the institution and not in favour of any individual, coupled with condition of service. The manner in which the lands have been throughout found to be administered by leasing out in public auction, the right to cultivate, the property registers maintained, etc. contained abundant materials to prove the claim of the institution and they belie the claim of the appellants and their predecessor that it was a personal grant coupled with the condition of performing service. 8. The principles to be borne in mind in deciding the nature of the grant came up for consideration often before this Court and it is useful to refer two decisions relevant for our purpose. In Sundar Battar v. Ramakrishna Naidu ((1962) 75 L.W. 485) a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider almost a similar grant. The Learned Judges of the Division Bench have held as hereunder:— “Learned Counsel, who appeared for the plaintiff, urges that the suit lands were granted on service tenure to the archaka for the performance of archaka service and was not a grant to the temple. He also urged that in any event since the plaintiff had been in possession of the lands from 1982, for over the statutory period, he had perfected title by adverse possession against the temple. In regard to the first point, an extract from the Inam Fair Register, and also inam title deeds granted in prior years are produced. Ex. A.2 deal, with one item of the suit property dry land 84 cents in extent, which is classified as a religious endowment under Column 2 of the Inam Fair Register. In regard to the first point, an extract from the Inam Fair Register, and also inam title deeds granted in prior years are produced. Ex. A.2 deal, with one item of the suit property dry land 84 cents in extent, which is classified as a religious endowment under Column 2 of the Inam Fair Register. Column 8 has the headings:—“Description of inam-if for service, it is to be stated whether the service is continued*****” Under this heading, the entry is: “For the support of the Iswarar Pagoda. This pagoda is said to be in good condition and the proceeds are enjoyed by the party in Column 16.” Column 13 has the heading: “Name of the original grantee” and the entry under it is “Iswarar”. Under column 16 which has the heading “Name and age of the owner at the time of the inam settlement in 1861-1862” the entry is “Illegible: Iswarar, Panchamadevi Gurukkal etc.”. The order of the Inam Commissioner entered in Column 22 is “To be Confirmed.” In the case of the two other items of property, the entry in the Inam Fair Register, is marked as Ex. A.4. Column 2 described them as religious endowments, Column 8 contains the entry: “For the worship of Vilveswaraswami in the pagoda situated in Villianur a hamlet of the village. The pagoda is said to be in good condition and worship is regularly rendered.” In Column 13, the entry is: “Sri Visveswaraswami and in column 18 the entry is Sri Vilveswaraswami worshippers: (1) Sundara Gurukkal (2) Sambasiva Gurukkal.” The recommendation of the then Deputy Collector in Column 2 is: “To be confirmed and continued so long as the worship is regularly performed.” The recital in the Inam Fair Register that the grant was a religious endowment or devadayam, is not conclusive on the question whether the grant is to the temple, or to the archaka burdened with service. We have to look into the entries in the other columns of the Inam Fair Register for the purpose (vide Sami Ayyangar v. Venkatarakana (1). We have to look into the entries in the other columns of the Inam Fair Register for the purpose (vide Sami Ayyangar v. Venkatarakana (1). The entries that the original grantee was the deity, that the grant was for the support was the deity, that the grant was for the support of the pagoda, and that the grant was to be confirmed and continued as long as the worship is performed, in the temple, furnish particulars which point to the grant being in favour of the temple rather than in favour of the archaka. Column 8 specifically provides for an appropriate entry to be made in case of inam is a service inam. Ex. A. No. 4, the grant is clearly described as the grant for the worship in the temple, and there is no reference to as a grant as service inam. In column 8 of Ex. A.2. there is however a reference to the fact that the gurukkal mentioned in Column 16 is enjoying the proceeds. But here again, no ment ion of the grant being a service inam is mentioned. The grant is described in Column 8 of Ex. A.2. as one for the support of Iswarar pagoda. The Inam Commissioners in recording their orders in the Inam Fair Register took care to mention in cases where the grant was found to be service inam, that the grant was confirmed to the party as long as he continues the performance of the service. But in the case of grants to temple, the orders of the Inam Commissioners in the Inam Fair Register take the form “To be confirmed so long as the worship is regularly performed.” The distinction in the terms of the orders passed in the Inam Fair Register, has been referred to in decided cases of this High Court. For example in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Thadikonia Koteeswara Rao (1) attention is drawn to the distinction between the words “to be confirmed so long as the service is preformed” and “to be confirmed to the party so long as he continues the performance of the service.” The letter is held to be a personal grant, but not the former. This distinction has also been referred to in the recent decision of the Supreme Court: in Lakshminarashimachari v. Agatheeswaraswami Varu (2). This distinction has also been referred to in the recent decision of the Supreme Court: in Lakshminarashimachari v. Agatheeswaraswami Varu (2). The entries in the Inam Fair Register in the present case, show that the archaka burdened with an obligation to perform service. We therefore confirm the finding of the trial court in this respect”. 9. In Ayya Nadar v. Sri Vaidhyanathaswami Koil Devasthanam (1970-II M.L.J. 129= (1969) 82 L.W. 271 ) yet another Division Bench had an occasion to deal with this aspect and observed as follows:— “Column (2) of the inam extract refers to the inam as devadayam padikasuvai thankulam. It is true the use of the word ‘devedayam’ is not decisive or conclusive to denote that it was a grant to the temple, or to an office attached to the temple. In Subramania v. Kailasanatha , it has been pointed out that the word ‘devadayam’ is used in inam registers not only in connection with religious grants strictly so called but also where the ultimate purpose are religious. It is clear from the decision that the test to be applied in distinguishing a grant to an institution from a grant to an individual is the intention and that each case depends upon its own facts. In Sami Ayyangar v. Venkataraman, it was held that ‘devadayam’ in a grant does not necessarily impart that the grant is made to the temple. It was further held that where a grant contains the clause that it is to be confirmed to party as long as he continues the performance of the service, it is a grant to the party burdened with service and not to the deity even though the word ‘devadayam’ is used as the inam register disclosed that the land was continuously held at least for two generations by the family of the party. It appears from page 260 of Sundaraja Iyengars land Tenures that the mere description of an inam ‘devadayam’ is not conclusive that the grant is in favour of a religious institution, though it is a strong proof that the institution is a public one. It appears from page 260 of Sundaraja Iyengars land Tenures that the mere description of an inam ‘devadayam’ is not conclusive that the grant is in favour of a religious institution, though it is a strong proof that the institution is a public one. It appears from the same page that where an inam was granted to the family of the defendant for services as acharya purusha in a temple, confirmed so long as the services was rendered, the grant is not one made to the grantee for the benefit of himself and the temple but one made for the support of the temple officer performing the duties of acharya purusha. It is clear from column. (8) of the inam extract relating to the description of the inam in the present case that the inam is for the service of sthaladars, or puja paricharakams, sthanikams, karivelam, sripadam, etc. of the pagoda of Sri. Vaidyanathaswami at Madavavilloagam. Thus the inam is not to a particular person, or to benefit a particular individual and the emphasis is really on the office of sthaladars. The description in column (10) referring to the inam as permanent instead of as hereditary is more consistent with the inam being a service inam, rather than a personal grant burdened with service. Again it appears from column (13) of the same inam extract that the inam of the original grantee in fasli 1212 is given as devalsekara brahmadayam sthalatharinam. In column (15) it is stated that in fasil 1254 the name entered in the survey accounts is that of Vaidyanathaswami Koil Sthalasthar inam, Chinnakutti Bhattar Visweyam and ten others. In the next column it is stated that he inam is held in 75 pangus by the Madavarvilagam Vaidyanathaswami Koil Sthalasthar inam office-bearers, namely Subba Bhattar and 16 others. The entries are consistent only with in inams being service. The inams have been granted, principally to the several offices attached to the temple the holders of the offices being remunerated by the enjoyment of the inam for rendering various services in the temple. The conduct of the devasthanam in exercising the right of removal and the appointment of office holders with the consequent result of depriving or allowing the enjoyment of the manibam lands by the person so removed or appointed is also a clear indication that the original grant is not a personal one. The conduct of the devasthanam in exercising the right of removal and the appointment of office holders with the consequent result of depriving or allowing the enjoyment of the manibam lands by the person so removed or appointed is also a clear indication that the original grant is not a personal one. The above finding of Jagadeesan. J, and of the Courts below are supported by Exhibits B-2, 3 and 11, discussed by them. In Lakshminarasimhachari v. Agastheeswaraswami, the Supreme Court has pointed out the test to be applied in such cases (head note):— “To be confirmed to the party so long as he continues the performance of the services” in the Inam Register is a personal grant but “to be confirmed so long as the service is performed” is not”. 10. So far as the facts relating to the present appeals are concerned, it is seen from the relevant entries as dealt with and discussed by the authorities below that the mention made about the grant being a religious endowment described as Devadayam with further description of the owner as the deity and a grant found to have been confirmed and to be continued so long as the worship is regularly rendered and the worship comtemplated was the worship of the respective deities in the pagoda go to show that the grant was only in favour of the deity and not in favour of the ancestor of appellants for doing personal service. The mere mention of the name of the appellants predecessor-in-interest was only on account of the fact that they happened to be the trustee also of the temple, in addition to they being the archakas and was representing the institution and not in their own right. The descriptions in the Inam Fair Register appear to be more in confirmity with the grant being in the names of the temple and the reference to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants being only as persons representing the temple and not otherwise as grantees themselves as now claimed. The descriptions in the Inam Fair Register appear to be more in confirmity with the grant being in the names of the temple and the reference to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants being only as persons representing the temple and not otherwise as grantees themselves as now claimed. Since the relevant entries clearly show that the original grant was made for and in favour of the deity to ensure its proper maintenance and performance of pujas, it is futile for the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest to claim any patta in their favour to the detriment of the rights and interest of the institution or deity merely taking advantages of their peculiar position that they happened to be the hereditary trustee-cum-archakas. 11. We are of the view that both the authorities below have properly considered all the materials on record in their proper perspective and applied correct principles of law in appreciating the respective claims of the parties and the findings concurrently recorded by both the authorities below do not suffer any patent error of law or fact to call for any interference in those appeals. The above appeals therefore fail and shall stand dismissed. No costs.