Judgment :- Raju, J. The above appeal has been posted before us on the directions of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice pursuant to the orders of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India dated 110. 1995 in Civil Appeal No.968 of 1980, since reported in (Sri Varadaraja Perianal Temple v. K.Ramachandra, (1995)4 S.C.C. (Supp.) 87), whereunder while setting aside the earlier order of dismissal of this appeal on the ground of limitation, the Supreme Court has remitted the matter to this Court for redeciding the matter on its own merits. 2. The appellant in the above Special Tribunal Appeal filed under Sec.30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) is the Inamdar Temple, viz., Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple at Anjur Village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District presently in Periyar District. The appeal has been filed against the orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal/ Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode dated 22. 1971 in C.M.A. No.729 of 1969, whereunder the tribunal below has chosen to set aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Erode, and allowed patta in respect of the entire lands in question in favour of respondents 1 and 2 before us, the appellants before the tribunal below. 3. The lands comprised in the schedule to the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Erode, in S.R. No.161/ 69/ M.I.Act/ Erode Taluk, dated 18. 1969 are situated in No.182, Anjur Village and were the subject matter of the grant confirmed in T.D. No.31. The lands are said to be unenfranchised Devadayam Inam granted and confirmed permanently in 1863 for the support of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal situated at Anjur so long as it was well kept. There is no controversy that the temple still exists and is in good condition. The inam tenure of the lands stood abolished consequent upon the Notification issued under the Act and the land stood vested with the State under Sec.3 (b) of the Act for being dealt with under the provisions of the Act. 4. Since there were no claims received for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands, the Settlement, Tahsildar initiated suo motu enquiry under Sec.11 of the Act and caused the publication and service of the required notices in the manner prescribed under the rules. 4. Since there were no claims received for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands, the Settlement, Tahsildar initiated suo motu enquiry under Sec.11 of the Act and caused the publication and service of the required notices in the manner prescribed under the rules. M/s.K.Kasturi Iyer and K.Ramachandra Iyer, both sons of Kuppusamy Iyer of Sivagiri appear to have entered appearance before the Settlement Tahsildar through their Advocate and filed a written statement of claim contending that old paimash Nos.273,11,18,290 and 291 measuring and aggregating to an extent of 28.95 acres correlating to the new S.Nos.148, 277, 281/2 and 409/2 had been granted to their grandfather Subba Iyer in 1863 for the proper upkeep of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal and they have been in the possession and enjoyment as the successors in interest and title to their grandfather Subba Iyer fulfilling the conditions and terms of the original grant. The further contention on their behalf was that subsequent to the original grant in 1863, another extent of 8.45 acres comprising 33. acres in S.No.148, 1.55 acres in S.No.277, 1.32 acres in S.No.281/2 and 2.25 acres in S.No.409/2, was purchased by their forefathers from different parties through oral sales for small consideration over and above the original aggregate extent of 28.95 acres comprised in the title deed and that ryotwari patta in respect of this excess extent of 8.45 acres has at any rate to be allowed in their personal names. Of the claimants K.Ramachandra Iyer appears to have got examined himself as P.W.1 and he admitted that no sale deeds were actually got executed from the transferors and that no other particulars in relation to the names of the transferors, the date or the year in which the oral sale took place, the actual amount of consideration for which the land was purchased and the names, who had actually purchased them were available with them. .5. The Karnam, who was examined as C.W.I, appears to have filed an extract from Inam B Register as Ex.C-1 and deposed that P.W.I and his brother Kasturi Iyer are the hereditary archakas, now rendering pooja in the temple, as successors in office, from out of the income derived from the lands granted for the support of the temple and that the temple is in good state of repairs. He further appears to have deposed that S.Nos.148, 277, 281 and 409 measuring in all to an extent of 37.40 aces of dry land, were comprised in T.D. No.31 as per the extract from the Inam-B Register printed in 1911 at the time of survey, that these survey numbers correlated to old paimash Nos.273,11,18,290 and 291 and that there, was no record whatsoever to show that any new filed or any additional extent in any of the fields was purchased and included in the title deed during the period from 1863 to 1911. The further information given by him was that the new aggregate extent left in the fields comprised in the title deed after acquisition of S.Nos.281/1 and 409/1 for the lower Bhavani Project measures only 37.16 acres. 6. The Settlement Inspector was also said to have examined as C.W.2 and he filed an extract from the Inam Fair Register, Ex.C.W.2 from the Collector’s Office for the title deed. He deposed that P.Nos. 11, 18, 273, 290 and 291 measuring an extent of 28.95 acres of dry land are the subject matter of the title deed No.31. As noticed earlier, the lands in question are unenfranchised Devadayam Inam. The Settlement Tahsildar, after taking into account the entries in column Nos.8, 10, 6, 21 and 22 of the Inam Fair Register extract, Ex.C-2, found that the lands were granted for the support of the Varadaraja Perumal temple at Anjur so long as it was well kept up and therefore, it was evident from the grant that it was of both warms to the temple only and it was not to any individuals or service holders for their personal benefit or conditioned upon performance of any service to the religious institutions. The Settlement Tahsildar also observed the fact that the temple alone was in possession and enjoyment of the lands through the service holders, namely, the archakas continuously ever since their grant. It is common in this part of the country, particularly in Southern India, that in yester years in respect of small temples, the archakas or poojaries used to be themselves the Trustees of the temple also. It is common in this part of the country, particularly in Southern India, that in yester years in respect of small temples, the archakas or poojaries used to be themselves the Trustees of the temple also. Taking into account all these aspects and also the claim made by P.W.I and his brother Kasturi Iyer, who are indisputably the hereditary archakas in the temple, the Settlement Tahsildar rejected their claim for patta in their personal names on payment of compensation under Sec.21 of the Act. The Settlement Tahsildar specifically adverted to the entries in Column Nos.13, 21 and 22 of the Extract of Inam Fair Register, Ex.C-2, that the original grantee was Varadaraja Perumal and not the forefathers of P. W. 1 and that the grant of the inam was confirmed permanently in 1863 in the name of the temple and not in favour of the forefathers of the claimants, who were only rendering poojas in the temple. .7. On the above consideration, the claim of P.W.I, that the inam land has been granted in the name of their forefathers was rejected as untenable. The Settlement Tahsildar also specifically found that there was no material worth credence or acceptance to claim that their forefathers had purchased subsequently any land in the survey numbers in question and that the claimants have miserably failed to prove by any documentary evidence that the excess lands had actually been purchased by their forefathers as claimed. The Settlement Tahsildar has also adverted to the fact that no details in relation to the names of the transferors, the date or the year in which the so called oral sales took place, the actual amount of consideration for which the land was purchased site, were forthcoming from the claimants. In view of the above, the Settlement Tahsildar directed the grant of patta for the entire extent of lands in favour of the temple represented by the hereditary archakas under Sec.8(2)(ii) read with Sec.11 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved M/s.K.Ramachandran and K.Kasthuri Iyer filed an appeal before the Minor Inams tribunal in C.M.A. No.729 of 1969. In view of the above, the Settlement Tahsildar directed the grant of patta for the entire extent of lands in favour of the temple represented by the hereditary archakas under Sec.8(2)(ii) read with Sec.11 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved M/s.K.Ramachandran and K.Kasthuri Iyer filed an appeal before the Minor Inams tribunal in C.M.A. No.729 of 1969. The tribunal was of the view, in view of the disclosure from the Inam Fair Register extract, that the grantor was the poliagar of Madurai, that a poliagar was only a patty chieftain and being not a sovereign ruler and his duty was only to collect tax, he could not on his own make any inam grant and therefore, the grant in favour of the temple should be taken to be one of the melvaram alone and not the kudivaram interest. There is absolutely no legal basis to justify such an approach or conclusion in this case. Thereupon, the tribunal below sought to proceed further in the matter referring to the kist receipts, the factum of acquisition and the negligible amount of compensation given and also further taking into account certain mortgage deeds and held that the appellants before the tribunal were in possession lawfully as Kudivaramdars and therefore, would be entitled to patta under Sec.8(l) of the Act. This finding about the claimants being kudivaramdars also has been rendered without any basis on facts or on law. On that view, the tribunal has chosen to disagree from the order of the Settlement Tahsildar and allowed the appeal, granting thereby patta in favour of the Respondents resulting in the filing of the above appeal by the temple. .9. Mr.T.L. Ram Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the tribunal committed a grave error of law in assuming that every poliagar for that matter is only a mere collection of tax and that there is no warrant or basis for such a claim. In support of the said stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel, our attention has been invited to the book by the noted Author Sundararaja Iyengar on Land Tenures in Madras Presidency, Particularly page 72 of the book, which reads as hereunder: ."Similar to the zamindars of the Northern Circars, were the Poligars or Palayakarans of the ceded Districts and the Carnatic, who rose to power under similar events and similar circumstances. Their history will be found described in the Fifth Report and in the undermentioned cases. They comprised: (1) descendants of ancient Rajas; (2) leaders of bonditti of freebetters, who, for the preservation of internal order in the country, had been either expressly entrusted with the charge of police or had been suffered to take upon themselves that kind of service; (3) descendants of persons who had held offices and trust under the Hindu Governments, and who had been given certain villages as Inam either as rewards for their service or partly for them or partly for the maintenance of a body of horse and fact ready to be called at the requisition of the Sovereign; and (4) renters of districts or revenue officers, including potals, who, in trouble some times, designated, themselves Kavalgars. As in the case of the zamindars of the Northern Circars, no poligars, except perhaps those who were descended from the ancient Rajas, were considered to have any proprietary interest in the land under their charge. Their history and their treatment of them by the British Government are well described in the following extract from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Lekkamani v. Puchqya Naicker. The name ‘Poligar’ appears to have been applied before the Maharatta Invasion to persons holding, in the southern, and western portions of the Madras Presidency, the position of those who had acquired the name of Zemindar in the Northern Districts, and substantially the history of the two classes in similar. Originally the descendants of officers of Police and Revenue agents of Hindu Sovereigns, they advanced themselves to the positions of chiefs, maintaining military forces and possessing fortresses and strongholds." 10. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the tribunal below committed an error, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the predecessors- in-interest of the claimants were granted any interest in the lands or any rights or that they have acquired lawfully or legitimately any rights at the same time explaining the source of such acquisition, in holding them to be holders of kudivarams and consequently, the order of the tribunal cannot be justified. 11. 11. Strong reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of A.T.S. Chinnaswami Chettiar v. Sri Kari V.Perumal Temple, (1995)3 S.C.C. (Supp.) 724 to contend that the grant in the nature of a devadayam religious inam of permanent in nature would carry both melvaram and kudivaram, particularly in view of the statutory presumption incorporated under Sec.44 of the Act and that at any rate the respondents have not shown by any sufficient document or acceptable material to come to the conclusion that such presumption stood rebutted, in this case. As far the excess extent available in the lands than the extent specifically found granted originally, it was contended that excess extent was available on proper measurement, since at the time when the original grant was made, there was no effective survey and the extent mentioned was a rough one. 12.Per contra, Mr. Irwin Aaron, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, vehemently contended that the mere mention made about the inam to be devadayam or permanent is no indication that it is of both varams and that the excess extent was really purchased and at any rate for the excess extent, the temple cannot be granted with any patta without reference to acquisitions made by the predecessors- in-interes of the present claimants. It was also contended that the claimants under predecessors-in-interest have acquired kudivaram rights and therefore have been rightly granted patta by the tribunal. The learned counsel also reiterated the point urged before the tribunal below that the person who made the grant could not be said to have had the right to make the grant as in the case of a king and therefore, the grant should be construed to mean of a limited extent of melvaram alone. On the above submissions the learned counsel contended that no interference would be called for with the order of the tribunal below. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. On the above submissions the learned counsel contended that no interference would be called for with the order of the tribunal below. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The tribunal below, in our view, to say the least, has misdirected itself on several aspects of vital importance and relevance, in considering about the grant in question as against the well merited, elaborate and critical analysis and consideration undertaken by the Settlement Tahsildar of the relevant entries from the Inam Fair Register extract, which go to show the character as also the nature of the grant had been made. The tribunal below has made a cursory attempt to summarily deal with the problem, throwing to winds the relevant principles invariably adopted and in such class or category of Iams has to be adopted in construction of an Inam Fair Register extract, which is the source of the grants of yester years. The Inam Fair Register has been maintained by the Inam Commission, which has been held to be a great act of State and the entries contained therein are entitled to great weight and consideration in construing the nature and extent of the grant. We have elaborately adverted to the contents of the relevant entries as found noticed by the Settlement Tahsildar in his order and it needs, in our opinion, no serious effort to agree with the ultimate findings recorded by the Settlement Tahsildar that the grant in question covered by T.D. No.31 was an unquestionably one in favour of the temple and having regard to the nature of such grant and the fact that it was a permanent one, it comprised of both varams in favour of the temple only. The said view which was taken by the Settlement Tahsildar also and which was received our acceptance as above, is well merited and supported by the principles laid down in the following catena of decisions of this Court: (1) Jumma Mosque, Salavakkam v. Sulaiman Sheriff, (1978)2 M.L.J. 99 , (2) Subramania Gurukkal v. Sri Patteeswaraswami Devasthanam Perur and others, (1993)4 S.C.C. (Supp.) 519, (3) Ayya Nadar v. Sri Vaidyanathaswamikoil Devasthanam and 4 others, (197.0)2 M.L.J. 129, (4) The Karivaradaraja Perumal Temple Pollachi by its Managing Trustee v. K.S.J. Raju Chettiar and another, 91 L. W. 142. .14. .14. The question for our consideration apart from the above conclusion of ours, would be as to whether the tribunal below was right in coming to the conclusion that a grant in favour of the temple was only of melvaram alone taking into account the fact that the grant was said to have been made by the poligars of Madura. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant temple, the poligars as they were called were of different categories with different kinds of powers and in the absence of any proof by acceptable material that the poligar of Madura had no royal status, but only was the chieftain to be only in charge of collection of tax, the tribunal could not have, for the mere sake of argument urged, readily accepted the plea on behalf of the claimants/ respondents. On the other hand a palayam is generally accepted to be in the nature of a Raj and Poliagar also to be possessed of sovereign proprietary rights over land. The claims/ respondents were unable to substantiate before the authorities below by any positive evidence as to how their ancestors had acquired kudivaram rights, when they have merely come into possession of the lands belonging the Temples only by they being hereditary archakas and from whom they derived such grant or such rights or the manner in which such kudivaram rights have been acquired by them. A vague plea from the respondents and their predecessors- in-interest could not have been the basis for recognition of substantial property rights in them and that too by overriding or whittling down the specific terms of the grant on mere surmises and assumption, which had not basis of facts in law. Consequently, the main reason, on the basis of which the tribunal below has chosen to interfere with the order of the Settlement Tahsildar cannot be said to be acceptable or sustainable in law and therefore the order of the tribunal is liable to be and is hereby set aside on this ground alone. 15. Even that apart, we are of the view that the respondents or their claimants having failed to substantiate the manner in which they have acquired kudivaram rights, the claim of the respondents could not have been countenanced under Sec.18(1) of the Act. 15. Even that apart, we are of the view that the respondents or their claimants having failed to substantiate the manner in which they have acquired kudivaram rights, the claim of the respondents could not have been countenanced under Sec.18(1) of the Act. The fact that the Government has chosen to pay a nominal or token compensation for the land acquired, is no ground to trend the grant in question to be of a melvaram alone. The respondents, as hereditary archakas appears to have bungled and failed td duly project the interests of the temple at that time. The reliance placed upon the usufructuary mortgages executed by the predecessors-in-interest cannot help to project their own claim in any manner. The predecessors- in-interest of the respondents were indisputably hereditary archakas and for that reason, the trustees of the temple and could not have lawfully asserted any claim against the interest of the temple and if any self-serving documents have been created, the same could not be the basis for claiming any substantial right before statutory authorities under the Act. .16. As far as the claim made for the so called excess extent found in the lands, which were the subject matter of the grant measuring 8.45 acres, is concerned, we are of the view that the claim by the respondents once again is based on surmises and in our is merely imaginary. It is by well settled and judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that originally during the kings or Zamindari days there was no proper survey of the lands as it is now done adopting cadastral survey system and if on effective proper survey any excess is found in the lands than the supposed previous area, particularly within the original boundaries which were the subject matter of the original grant, the excess also shall form part of the original grant and no claim of the nature can be separately entertained for such excess land also in favour of the respondents. The falsity of the claim of the respondents and their predecessors- in-interest would be made known by the manner in which it is projected when they have to even admit that they could not dispose as to from whom the original purchases have been made and at what point of time and for what consideration as also by whom out of their ancestors. The claim appears to be nothing but a cock and bull story invented for the occasion and the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest by merely taking advantage of the possession as the hereditary archakas now rendering pooja in the temple have chosen to claim or assert title even against the interests of the temple. This cannot be either appreciated or approved by the authorities under the Act or by this Court. 17. Consequently, we are of the view that me order of the tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside and that of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 18. 1969 is restored. No cost. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant temple now represents that in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the competent authorities have appointed the statutory trustees to the temple and they are in control and possession of the Temple Administration. In view of the above supervening circumstance and development, the patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of the temple as represented by the archakas shall stand modified to the extent that a patta shall stand granted in favour of the temple represented by the trustees of the Temple appointed for time being without specific mention of any particular name of any individual or individuals.