Judgment : This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu, dated 111. 1987 in A.S.No.72 of 1986. The defendants are the appellants. .2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.111 of 1982 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Maduranthagam for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession, on the ground that the suit property constituted melvaram and kudivaram rights. The kudivaram right originally belonged to one Pappammal who executed the settlement deed in respect of the kudivaram in favour of one Govinda Gounder as per Ex.A-1, dated 112. 1919. Govinda Gounder had a brother Manickam and both the brothers were in possession of the Kudivaram. As Govinda Gounder died unmarried, Manickam alone was in exclusive possession till his death. The respondent/plaintiff is the sole heir of Manickam Gounder and she succeeded to the property as Kudivaramadar. The melvaram belonged to one Punniyakotti and he sold the said right in favour of the plaintiff as per Ex.A-2, dated 19. 1968. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff became the absolute owner of both the varams. Patta stands in her name and she is residing in the house put up in the suit property. As the defendants/appellants attempted to interfere with her possession, it became necessary for her to file the suit. 3. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit standing the suit property has been divided into eastern half and the western half belongs to them. The western half has been subdivided as S.No.81/2A. The plaintiff is the owner of the eastern half only. The melvaram owned by Punniyakotti was partitioned between him and his son Devarajan and each got half share. Punniyakotti sold his half share to the plaintiff/respondent and his son Devarajan sold his half share in favour of the defendant and now the dispute is with regard to the melvaram. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, necessary issues have been formulated by the learned District Munsif, Maduranthagam. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the learned District Munsif concluded that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to only the eastern half of the suit property declaring her title to the same and granted permanent injunction in respect of the eastern half share and dismissed the suit in respect of the western half share without costs. 5. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the learned District Munsif concluded that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to only the eastern half of the suit property declaring her title to the same and granted permanent injunction in respect of the eastern half share and dismissed the suit in respect of the western half share without costs. 5. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.72 of 1980 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu. The learned First Appellate Judge, on a consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and on a re-appraisal of the evidence allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of decree of the trial court and decree suit in full, which has given rise to this Second Appeal. .6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended under the document Ex.B-1 Devarajan, the son of Punniyakotti sold his melvaram right in the western half share in S.No.81/2 and the first defendant became entitled to the western 92 cents in the total extent of 1 acre, 84 cents and patta also has been issued in favour of the first defendant/first appellant and, therefore, the First Appellate Judge is incorrect in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. .7. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued the appellants/defendants have not claimed any kudivaram right in the suit property and in the written statement also, no specific allegation had been made by the appellants/defendants about the kudivaram right. The appellants claimed only melvaram right in the suit property on the ground that Punniyakotti who was entitled to the melvaram had given the western half share of the melvaram right to his son Devarajan in a oral partition and Devarajan sold his right to the first defendant/first appellant, as per the document Ex.B-1, and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the western half share, namely, 92 cents in S.No.81/2, whose total extent is 1 acre, 84 cents. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff D.W.1, namely, the first defendant is the only witness examined on his side, In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he is not aware of the Panchayat in which oral partition took place between Punniyakotti and Devarajan in respect of the melvaram right. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff D.W.1, namely, the first defendant is the only witness examined on his side, In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he is not aware of the Panchayat in which oral partition took place between Punniyakotti and Devarajan in respect of the melvaram right. It is also admitted by the first defendant that Devarajan, his vendor is the son of the first wife of Punniyakotti and through the second wife, Punniyakotti had another son. If really a partition had taken place in the family of Punniyakotti, some property should have been allotted to the son through the second wife also in the suit survey number, which is not the case here. No panchayatdar who was present in the panchayat, in which the melvaram right had been divided into two shares, namely, the western half and eastern half, had been examined on the side of the defendants. Except the ipsi dixit of the first defendant, there is no other independent evidence or the evidence of the panchayat who participated in the panchayat has been made available to the court to accept the case of the defendants that an oral partition took place between Punniyakotti and Devarajan about 20 years prior to the examination of D.W.1 in which the western 92 cents had been allotted to Devarajan, It is noticed from the recitals in Ex.A-2 the sale deed, that Punniyakotti, who is admittedly the owner of the melvaram, had sold the entire melvaram right to the plaintiff and the recitals do not show that a partition took place between him and his son Devarajan. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the finding of the learned First Appellate Judge that the first defendant/first appellant had not proved that an oral partition took place between Punniyakotti and his son Devarajan and the western 92 cents had been given to the share of Devarajan and the eastern 92 cents was allotted to the share of Punniyakotti. In my opinion the mere change of patta in the name of the first appellant would not confer title on him to the western 92 cents, as it is well settled that patta is not a document of title and it is only a receipt to, enable the pattadar to pay the kist to the Government. In my opinion the mere change of patta in the name of the first appellant would not confer title on him to the western 92 cents, as it is well settled that patta is not a document of title and it is only a receipt to, enable the pattadar to pay the kist to the Government. The learned counsel for the appellants invited the attention of this court to the decision in Mannarswami Nattar v. Arumugha Mudaliar , (1970)2 MLJ. 317 In that decision, it has been held by a learned Judge of this Court that after the vesting of the Estate in the State, on the abolition of the estate under the relevant Act, there is no such thing as melvaram or kudivaram and that if the plaintiff was a ryot under the Estates Land Act prior to the abolition of the estates and the lands in question have been properly included in his holding, he became a ryotwari pattadar of the lands on the abolition of the estate. In a loose sense only, it could be said that he was entitled to melvaram from the defendants, the defendants having kudivaram. Placing reliance on the above observation, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that after the abolition of the estate, there is no kudivaram or melvaram and since patta had been issued in favour of the first defendant/first appellant for the western 92 cents, he is entitled to the said extent and the plaintiff/respondent cannot claim melvaram or be in possession of the entire extent of 1 acre 84 cents and the learned First Appellate Judge has committed a grave error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court and the same had to be set aside in the Second Appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, placing reliance on the decision in Sri Madavaperumal Devasthanam v. Tmt.Dhanlakshmi and others Sri Madavaperumal Devasthanam v. Tmt.Dhanlakshmi and others Sri Madavaperumal Devasthanam v. Tmt.Dhanlakshmi and others , (1996)1 L.W. 231 submitted only if the Inam is granted by the sovereign and confirmed by the British Government, it would fall within the scope of the legislation abolishing Inams. There can be grants by private owners or villagers in lieu of wages for services etc., which cannot be treated as inams, for there is no grant of revenue either in whole or part by the Government. It can only be treated as the right of the person concerned to remain on the lands under an arrangement entered into between the grantors on the one hand and the grantees on the other. In para 13 of the said decision, we find the following observation: “It is well-settled that only if the inam is granted by the sovereign and confirmed by the British Government, it would fall within the scope of the legislation abolishing inams. There can be grants by private owners or villagers in lieu of wages for services etc., which cannot be treated as inams, for there is no grant of revenue either in whole or part by the Government. It can only be treated as the right of the person concerned to remain on the lands under an arrangement entered into between the grantors on the one hand and the grantee on the other. One such instance of grant made to the artisans of the village by the Villagers has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Uthirasomasundareswarar v. Rajanga , A.I.R. 1965 Mad. 355 After referring to the fact that the terms of the original grant were not available, the Bench said that the grant in that case was one by the villagers, which did not carry with it a grant of the assessment on the land and it cannot be regarded as an inam. The above passages from the book on land tenures have been extracted by the Bench in its judgment. Then the Bench observed: ”It is true that the respondents at an earlier stage admitted that the lands were held by them as Manyam, but the fact that party calls it a manyam cannot invest it with a character which it does not possess, that is, a grant of revenue.“ ”It is a settled proposition that in this part of the country there can be a grant by persons other than the Sovereign and such grants will not be inams falling within the scope of the Abolition legislation. Hence, the second reason given by the Appellate Judge is also erroneous.” 9. Hence, the second reason given by the Appellate Judge is also erroneous.” 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff pointed out the appellants have not disputed the kudivaram right of the plaintiff in the entire extent of the suit land and the appellants claimed only melvaram right in the western 92 cents. As the oral partition between Punniyakotti and his son Devarajan, the vendor of the first defendant has not been proved to the satisfaction of the court, the sale deed Ex.B-1, under which the first appellant had purchased the western 92 cents cannot be valid and, therefore, the First Appellate Judge is perfectly correct in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. I find there is substantial merit in the above contention. I am convinced that by private arrangement, the predecessors-in-title of the respondent/plaintiff Pappammal and Punniyakotti have created kudivaram and melvaram rights de hors the Estates Abolition Act and both of them were enjoying the kudivaram and melvaram without any break and Punniyakotti has sold his melvaram right to the respondent/plaintiff under the sale deed Ex.A-2 and she became the owner of both the varams and as the first defendant/first appellant has not proved the oral partition between his vendor Devarajan and his father Punniyakotti no reliance can be placed on the sale deed Ex.B-1. In the fact situation that the respondent/plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the Kudivaram and the respondent/plaintiff became entitled to the melvaram right as per the document Ex.A-2, as the oral partition has not been proved by the first appellant/first defendant, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the First Appellate Judge that the respondent/plaintiff became entitled to both the varams and the learned trial Judge is both the varams and the learned trial judge is clearly erroneous in granting a decree in respect of the eastern 92 cents alone is the suit property. 10. In the result, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Judge is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.