Judgment :- Raju, J. The appellants who claimed to have been in possession and doing cultivation of the lands in question were able to get patta before the Settlement Officer, Branch Settlement Officer, Madurai-2, but lost before the tribunal below have filed the appeal under Sec.30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. 2. The lands in question are indisputably Minor Inam lands and the Inam in question comprised of both warams in favour of the respondent temple. The appellants even on an earlier occasion were granted patta under Sec.9(l)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 by the original authority on the basis that the temple in respect of which the Inam grant was made ceased to exist several decades ago and no one could be granted patta under Sec.9, since there was no alienation of the lands to the ryots by the institution or any one representing the institution as such. On that view and on the assumption that the appellants have been enjoying the lands in question for a continuous period of more then 12 years immediately prior to 4. 1960, patta was granted. Aggrieved, the respondent temple filed an appeal before the tribunal below and in R.A. No.12 of 1976, the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivaganga by its order dated 26. 1976 set aside the order of the original authority on the ground that no notice was issued to the temple and the notice issued on the H.R. & C.E. Department was not proper and sufficient. The matter has bene remitted for fresh consideration. Thereupon the original authority took up the enquiry and by his proceedings dated 22. 1979 again granted patta in favour of the appellants under Sec.9(l)(i) of the Act. The grant was again made on the very same reasons which weighed with the original authority who granted patta on the earlier occasion in favour of the Appellants. The respondent temple pursued the matter on appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivaganga in R.A. No.26 of 1979, The learned Tribunal by it’s order dated 210. 1982 allowed the appeal and sustained the claim of the temple for patta under Sec.B(2) (ii). In coming to such conclusion, reliance was also placed by the Tribunal below on the decision reported in Kariavaradaraja Perumal Temple, Pollachi v. K.S.J. Raju Chettiar, 91 L. W. 142. 1982 allowed the appeal and sustained the claim of the temple for patta under Sec.B(2) (ii). In coming to such conclusion, reliance was also placed by the Tribunal below on the decision reported in Kariavaradaraja Perumal Temple, Pollachi v. K.S.J. Raju Chettiar, 91 L. W. 142. On the view taken as above, there was no occasion for countenancing of the claim of the appellants under Sec.9 of the Act. Hence the above appeal. .3. Mrs.Bhagyalakshmi, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that in the teeth of the finding that the temple is not in existence by the Settlement Tahsildar, the order granting patta under Sec.9(l)(i) in favour of the appellants cannot be said to be vitiated and the tribunal below committed an error in interfering with the patta granted in favour of the appellants notwithstanding the fact that they have proved their actual possession and cultivation the lands of for over a period of 12 years prior to 4. 1960. 4. Mr.D.M. Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent, while adopting the reasons, assigned by the tribunal below, contended that the order of the tribunal is quite in accordance, with law and does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The original authority viz., the Settlement Tahsildar himself has not countenanced the claim the appellants on the basis of Kudivaram rights claimed to have been acquired by them. In spite of the above rejection of the claim of the appellants under Sec.8, having regard to the view taken by the original authority that the temple is not in existence and therefore the temple is not also entitled to patta, the original authority came to apply the provisions of Sec.9 treating the lands as having vested with the State and directed the grant of patta on the basis of personal cultivation of the lands for a continuous period of 12 years immediately before 4. 1960 as claimed by the appellants. It is this conclusion of the original authority, that was interfered with and not approved by the learned tribunal below. 1960 as claimed by the appellants. It is this conclusion of the original authority, that was interfered with and not approved by the learned tribunal below. The tribunal found that the conclusion arrived at by the original authority that the temple was not in existence cannot be accepted and in view of the existence of the temple as also the failure on the part of the appellants to prove that they are legally entitled to the Kudivaram interests by showing that they were lawful alienees from the institution or any one representing the institution the patta was ordered to be given in favour of the temple under Sec.18(2)(ii). 6. The question for consideration would be as to whether the claim of the appellants or that any conclusion arrived at by the original authority on the assumption or of the temple having allegedly ceased to exist so as to disable the temple from getting patta, could be sustained by us. .7. The original authority had not adverted to any details or sufficient particulars of evidence on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that the temple ceased to exist but that the temple has been agitating for the claim behind the back by filing an appeal on the earlier occasion and also during the present round of proceedings which would belie the claim or falsify the finding of the original authority about the non-existence of the temple. The original authority appears to have been labouring under a serious misapprehension and seems to have mis-directed itself in making a cryptic observation about the temple having ceased to exist. Merely because the temple is not found in affluent circumstances or in perfect condition the temple cannot be readily presumed to have become extinct. It is not the case of the respondent that the idols in the sanctum sanctorum are not there and the temple has totally disappeared from the scene. Merely because the temple is in a dilapidated condition, it cannot be presumed to have become extinct. The existence of the temple is not to be assessed or decided with reference to the condition of the build-ing alone. But the vital and relevant factor in such case would be existence of the presiding deity and the people offering worship. Merely because the temple is in a dilapidated condition, it cannot be presumed to have become extinct. The existence of the temple is not to be assessed or decided with reference to the condition of the build-ing alone. But the vital and relevant factor in such case would be existence of the presiding deity and the people offering worship. There are many number of temples of yore in this part of the State which even remain uncared for but yet looked after and administered by H.R. & C.E. Department. Consequently we are unable to appreciator or approve the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Branch Officer, Madurai. The Tribunal below, in our view, has properly applied the law and appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and come to the conclusion that the temple is in existence and therefore entitled to patta, in view of the concurrent finding that the appellants have failed to show that they have legally acquired the kudivaram interest by alienation from the temple or anybody else properly representing the temple. That apart, we are also unable to appreciate or approve the finding recorded by the original authority about the proof of personal cultivation of the land. The proof of personal cultivation of the land cannot be sustained on the basis of some assertion made by tendering oral evidence alone. Except the claimants themselves, no independent person or village officer or witness or concrete material appears to have been produced before the authorities below to prove the claim of personal cultivation for period of more then 12 years prior to 4. 1960. We are only surprised to find that the original authority has readily agreed with the claim made by the appellants without even any proper or legal proof of such personal cultivation in this case. Consequently we do not find any error or infirmity whatsoever in the order of the Tribunal and has correctly applied the position of law, as noticed by us. 8. The appeal therefore fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.