Judgment :- F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Minor Inams Tribunal ‘(Sub-Court) of Chengalpattu, dated 30-10-1981 in C.M.A. Nos. 35 and 34 of 1973. 2. C.M.A. No. 35 of 1973 was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14.5.1973 of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu made in S.R. No. 24/AIB/73 Act 30/63/Sdt, while C.M.A. No. 34 of 1973 was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14-5-1973 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu made in S.R. No. 24/AIB/73/Act 30/63/Sdt. The orders of the Settlement Tahsildar, as well as that of Assistant Settlement Officer were identical while granting relief in favour of the respondents herein and as such, the appellant preferred the above two appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 35 of 1973 and 34 of 1973 before the Minor Inams Tribunal (Sub Court) of Chengalpattu who also confirmed the findings of the Settlement Tahsilder as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer. Aggrieved against the said common judgment rendered in C.M.A. Nos. 35 of 1973 and 34 of 1973, the appellant has come forward with these two Special Tribunal Appeals. 3. The brief history of the case: perusal of the voluminous documents discloses that the lands covered by (Tile Deed) T.D. No. 482, dated 3.4.1862 were originally declared as Inam Estate within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948). The said declaration was set aside by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore by its order dated 3-3-1955 in A.S. No. 47 of 1954 (filed against case No. 1/1954). Against the said order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, the State preferred an appeal before this Honourable Court in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958. The said appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated 3-1-1961 holding as under: “Though we have rested our decision on other grounds, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal that Adambakkam was not an Inam Estate and we direct that the appeal be dismissed with costs of the second respondent.” 4. Subsequent to the Judgment dated 3.1.1961 passed in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958, the Government cancelled the Notification issued under Act 26 of 1948. After the advent of Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act (Act 26 of 1963), the village was notified under the said Act. Subsequent to the Judgment dated 3.1.1961 passed in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958, the Government cancelled the Notification issued under Act 26 of 1948. After the advent of Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act (Act 26 of 1963), the village was notified under the said Act. The appellant questioned the constitutional validity of the said Act and on meeting with failure in W.P.1460 of 1965 in this Honourable Court, went to Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.215 of 1967 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 18.11.1970. Thereafter, the village was taken over on 30-6-1971. The appellant filed a writ petition and also a petition under Section 5 (1) of Tamil Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1963 seeking for a declaration that the lands covered by T.D. No. 482 was a free hold land. By order dated 14-10-1971 in S.R. No. 1/Act 31 of 1963/71, the Settlement Officer, Salem held that a specified extent of 308.8.0 cawnies was granted in T.D. No. 482, as the poramboke and other Inams were deducted from the total ex tent in the village and the remainder given as “Shrotrium” and hence declared the grant in T.D. No. 482 as a Minor Inam. It is relevant to point out that in that proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an endorsement to the effect that the appellant was not pressing its claim for declaration of free hold rights. After the declaration of the lands covered by T.D. No. 482 as Minor Inams, the village was deleted from the original notification under Act 26 of 1963 and was again notified under Section 1 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) pursuant to which, the lands vested with the Government with effect from 15-2-1965 i.e. the date of coming into force of Act 30 of 1963. 5. The statutory enquiry for the grant of patta for the lands comprised in T.D. No. 482 was taken up on the application of the appellant-Inamdaar. The appellant-Inamdaar claimed patta under Section 8 (2)(ii) of Act 30 of 1963. 5. The statutory enquiry for the grant of patta for the lands comprised in T.D. No. 482 was taken up on the application of the appellant-Inamdaar. The appellant-Inamdaar claimed patta under Section 8 (2)(ii) of Act 30 of 1963. One significant factor which is required to be noted is that the settlement officer-III, Chittoor, acting under Act 26 of 1948 by his order dated 9-2-1950 while holding that the village of Adambakkam was an Inam Estate, also held that the Madam held only Melvaram and not Kudivaram with it. The said order was set aside by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore in A.S. No. 51 of 1953 dated 28-12-1953 remanded the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer for fresh disposal and also permitted both parties to adduce further evidence. After remand, the Settlement Officer passed orders to the effect that the appellant-Adheenam failed to show that the original grant consisted of both varams and it had only melvaram and that the village of Adambakkam was an Inam Estate within the meaning of Section 2(7) of Estates Abolition Act 1948. 6. As stated earlier, the said order was subsequently set aside by the Estates Abolition Tribunal in A.S. No. 47 of 1954, dated 3-3-1955 which was also confirmed by this Honourable Court in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958 on 3-1-1961. In the enquiry held by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor and after remand by the Settlement Officer, Thiruvallur, the finding to the effect that the appellant-Adheenam held only Melvaram and not both the varams was rendered in spite of the statement given by the Izaradar before the Assistant Settlement Officer to the effect that the whole village was granted as Inam to Tiruvanmaiyur Deivasigamani Desikar Sannadhi and who according to him, enjoyed both the varams in the village. 7. It is also relevant to note that the order of the Settlement Officer, Salem dated 14-10-1971, in an enquiry held under Act 26 of 1963 holding that the grant mentioned in Ex.P1 was a part village grant or Minor Inam grant, has become final and conclusive. 7. It is also relevant to note that the order of the Settlement Officer, Salem dated 14-10-1971, in an enquiry held under Act 26 of 1963 holding that the grant mentioned in Ex.P1 was a part village grant or Minor Inam grant, has become final and conclusive. In fact, while rendering his decision, the Settlement Officer, Salem also referred to the Judgment of this Honourable Court rendered in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958 dated 3-1-1961 wherein the point in issue was whether the grant was of whole village and the ultimate finding was that the grant in T.D. No. 482 of Adambakkam village was not a grant of Inam Estate within the meaning of Estates Abolition Act 26 of 1948 and that it was not a whole village Inam grant. As in that appeal, the High Court was not concerned with the issue whether the grant made in T.D. No. 482 was a part village grant or Minor Inam grant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963, the Settlement Officer, Salem went into the said question by applying the conditions laid down in Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and interpreted the terms of the grant as mentioned in Ex.P1 and in the absence of the original grant, while reaching the conclusion that what was granted and confirmed under T.D. No. 482 was a Minor Inam in the village of Adambakkam, the Settlement Officer, Salem relied upon the decision of this Honourable Court dated 3-1-1961 rendered in S.T.A.7 of 1958 holding that the grantor reserved interest in the village and that some of the Minor Inams were granted subsequent to the major grant. In fact it was after the order of the Settlement Officer, Salem in 1478 of 1971, dated 14-10-1971, the village covered by T.D. No. 482 was notified under Section 1(5) of Act 30 of 1963 and transferred to the Government and vested with it with effect from 15-2-1965. 8. In its application for the grant of patta under Section 8(2) (ii) of Act 30 of 1963, for an extent of 308.8.0 cawnies, the appellant raised as many as nine points in support of its contention for the grant of patta in its favour, namely. 8. In its application for the grant of patta under Section 8(2) (ii) of Act 30 of 1963, for an extent of 308.8.0 cawnies, the appellant raised as many as nine points in support of its contention for the grant of patta in its favour, namely. i) that by virtue of Section 44 of the Act 30 of 1963, there is a statutory presumption that the applicant being a religious institution, it should be held that the appellant-Adheenam was holding Iruvaram right and therefore entitled for patta; ii) that the Inam fair register extract disclose that both varams were granted and not Melvaram alone; iii) that G.O.Ms. No. 512 dated 25-2-1964, earlier notification dated 23-3-1950 in G.O.Rt. No. 2520 (rr) under Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 came to be issued as there were no ryoti lands or ryots with occupancy rights therein; iv) that the various documents to which the Inamdar was not a party had no evidentiary value; v) that the copy of the sale deed (Ex.P473) marked in O.S. 84 of 1915 was an unregistered sale deed, that Adheenam was not a party to the suit, that the identity of the lands mentioned in the sale deed with reference to the lands of the Inamdar not having been established, those Exhibits with reference to patta No. 7 cannot be relied upon; vi) that even as late as of the year 1960, fishery rights in the tanks was enjoyed by the Inamdar; vii) that mere grant of patta by Inamdar and Izaradar was not sufficient in the absence of any purchase of Kudivaram rights by the objectors from the Inamdars; viii) that the ground rent patta under Section 13(1) could only be claimed by those who owned the land along with the building and not by the person who owned the building alone; and ix) that the term Kudivaram and Melvaram is applicable to the cultivable lands and not for building sites. 9. 9. The various grounds raised by the appellant as stated above were resisted at the instance of the respondents contending that i) that when the Assistant Settlement Officer in his proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) held in his order dated 24-7-1954 that the appellant-Adheenam had no Kudivaram right and when Adheenam did not object or file any appeal before the Estates Abolition Tribunal or Special Appellate Tribunal, by virtue of Section 11 of C.P.C, on the basis of principles of res judicata , the appellant would be bound by the said finding in the present proceedings as well and therefore that by itself would rebut the presumption available under Section 44 of Act 30 of 1963; ii) that the grant being Dharmadaya Inam, can be relatable only to a temple and not to a Madam and therefore the very grant in favour of the appellant-Adheenam, which is admittedly being only a Samadhi, its claim for the grant of patta cannot be countenanced; iii) that though the grant was stated to be in favour of Thiruvanmaiyur Deivasigamani Desikar Sannadhi in the Madam, there was no proof to show that the present claimant namely, Kundrakkudi Madadhipathi was a proper person to succeed to the Inam; iv) that the age old pattas under Ex. P12 etc, disclose that only payment of Beriz was required which cannot be the lease amount as there was no cess on it; v) that the very pattas granted by the Inamdar as well as its Izaradar mentioned that the lands can be disposed of by the pattadars provided all the arrears of land revenue was paid; vi) that by its very nature, patta is a document of title given to a owner of a property and not to a lessee and therefore it should be taken that the lands were owned by the ryots and not by the Inamdar; vii) that the documents filed in O.S. 84 of 1915 and the Judgment rendered therein by the Additional District Munsif, Chengalpattu in the suit filed between the Madathipathi of Tiruvannamalai Adheenam and one Muthuswamy Mudaliar and others to the effect that the lands involved in the suit covered by patta No. 7 owned by Adheenam represents only two shares in the village which were purchased by Adheenam from one Thiru A. Krishna Iyangar and Thiru M. Krishnamachariar in 1867 and therefore if the Inamdar had Kudivaram rights in the entire village, there was no necessity for the Adheenam to purchase any lands from the ryots; viii) that the fact that for the lands taken over by the Government, compensation was paid to the owners of the lands and not to the Adheenam and the fact that the Adheenam did not object to it only showed that it had only Melvaram right, and ix) that the above said factors did go to show that the Inamdar had only Melvaram and the ryots had Kudivaram right; 10. While considering the various contentions raised by the parties, the Settlement Officer also had the evidence of Thiru. C. Ganesan, Settlement Deputy Tahsildar, Branch Settlement Office as C.W.1 and Exs.C1 to C13. A contention was therefore, raised at the instance of the objectors based on Ex.C12 which was a letter from the Assistant Commissioner (HR and CE) to the effect that the said letter does not specify the nature of the service and place of service, that Thiruvanmaiyur which is far away from Kudrakkudi cannot be equated to Kundrakkudi and therefore, the service said to have been continued to be performed cannot be accepted. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant Adheenam that the Endowment Assistant Commissioner having certified about the continued performance of service, the same should be accepted. As regards Exs.C5 and C8, namely Adangals and village accounts, it was contended that the same were prepared and maintained during the period when the tenure was not decided and therefore, they have no evidentiary value. 11. The Assistant Settlement Officer as well as the Settlement Tahsildar have reached the following conclusions, viz., i) that the Inam fair register extract does not throw any light about the Iruvaram right; ii) that the Inam held by the Branch Madam was under the Superintendentship of the High Priest of Kundrakudi and therefore, the present applicant properly represented the Inamdar; iii) that the implementation of the Madras Estates Lands (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 was cancelled on the ground that the village was not an estate as confirmed in S.T.A.7 of 1958 by this Honourable Court and not on the ground that there were no ryotwari lands or no ryots; iv) that the various documents, sale deeds, mortgage deeds, settlement deeds, etc. considered along with the pattas issued by the Inamdar as well as its Izaradar disclose that the villagers had Kudivaram rights; v) Exs.P471 to P474 relating to O.S. 84 of 1915 disclose that the Adheenam admitted to have possessed only Melvaram right in respect of the remaining 46 Pangus of total 48 Pangus of the village except 2 Pangus covered by Patta No. 7, vi) that the Muchalikkas, Roka pattas and Manaivari pattas granted by the Inamdar and Izaradar disclose that in the event of failure to pay the Thirwai. Provisions of Act 8 of 1965 and Madras Act 1 of 1908 would be invoked to realise the arrears, that though it was contended that since it has been now declared that the grant to the institution was not an estate and since Act 1 of 1908 cannot be invoked, those wordings are invalid while the fact remained that the Inamdar himself issued pattas between 1906 and 1964 and that further entries in Adangals for faslis 1356, 1357, 1375 and 1363 (Ex.C11 series) disclose that except Patta No. 7, all other lands were in the holding of the Ryots; vii) that Kudivaram and Melvaram were issued not only for cultivable lands, and that under Section 13(1)(2) of the Act, if the land and building are owned by the same person, he would be entitled for the Ground Rent patta for both, or otherwise both parties will be issued with joint patta; viii) that Exs.C6 and C7 disclose that Kudivaram compensation was paid to the ryots while reduction of Jodi alone was given to the temple, that the ryots have thus rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 44 with sufficient material evidence and therefore, the Inam grant under T.D. No. 482 consisted of only Melvaram and not both the varams and, ix) that the Inamdaar held both varams in respect of patta No. 7 alone and in respect of other lands, Kudivaram rights were held by the objectors-villagers. So holding, the Assistant Settlement Officer as well as the Special Tahsildar reserved the grant of patta to be made in respect of villagers in separate proceedings. 12. While confirming the orders of the Special Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, dated 14-5-1973, the Minor Inams Tribunal, in its order dated 30.10.1981 in C.M.A. 35 of 1973 and 34 of 1973 also took into account Ex.P1260 and 597(A) which showed that the lands comprised in the grant were sold in public auction for collection of rent by the Revenue Department and that the Inamdar did not raise any protest nor made any claim on those occasions which only showed that the Inamdaar had no Kudivarm right in respect of the lands comprised in T.D. No. 482 except to the extent to which it was covered by patta No. 7. 13. Sri. 13. Sri. B. Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the grant herein was Dharmadayam grant to one Deivasigamani Pandaram and not Devadayam grant which is relatable to a Deity and that the grant being a continuous one for the service of Kalahastiswara Swamy in the Madam of Deivasigamani Desikar Sannadhi, that the grant being valid so long as the service is performed and as certified by the Endowment Assistant Commissioner, the service is being continued, the condition for the grant made in T.D. No. 482 having been satisfied, the appellant is entitled for the recognition of its right in respect of the lands covered by T.D. No. 482. As regards the land acquisition proceedings of the year 1925, the learned counsel would contend that the appellant had no notice in those proceedings and also that there was no finding given with regard to the ownership of the lands, in those proceedings while granting compensation and therefore, the same will have no effect on the appellant. In this context, the learned counsel by referring to Section 43(2) of Act 30 of 1963, contended that the decision rendered in those proceedings will not be binding on the parties. As regards the Division Bench judgment rendered under Act 26 of 1948, the learned counsel contended that the said judgment has become final wherein the grant of patta under the Estate Lands Act to the Occupants was considered and ultimately held that the lands in question cannot be held to be an Inam Estate and that therefore it cannot be notified under the Act 26 of 1948. The learned counsel would contend that the judgment rendered in those proceedings would of no assistance to the parties and the parties were labouring under total misconception. The learned counsel also contended that the grant was of specified extent and the Jodi payable was determined on the entirety of the extent, that after the land acquisition proceedings, when a remission in the Jodi was made, it only showed that the grant was related to the lands and not to mere right of the appellant to collect revenue. The learned counsel also contended that the grant was of specified extent and the Jodi payable was determined on the entirety of the extent, that after the land acquisition proceedings, when a remission in the Jodi was made, it only showed that the grant was related to the lands and not to mere right of the appellant to collect revenue. The learned counsel by referring to Ex.R2 namely document No. 2074 of 1902, dated 24-12-1902, in and by which one Solayappan Nattan executed a lease in respect of fishery rights in Adambakkam big tank in favour of Inamdaar and also Ex.P1362 which is of the year 1904 (available in File Vol. 3/11) wherein a notice issued under Act 8 of 1865 by the then Izaardar recognising the Iruvaram right held by Adheenam contended that the grant was of both the varams. The learned counsel also referred to Ex.P472 (contained in Vol. 2/2) to contend that one of the issues involved therein was as to who was the owner and the finding was that the appellant was the owner of the land. According to the learned counsel, reference to the purchase made by the appellant for the purpose of holding that appellant held Iruvaram right in respect of those lands covered by 2 Pangus is a mistake of fact arrived by the Courts below. The learned counsel by referring the Judgment dated 3-1-1961 rendered in STA 7 of 1958 contended that this Honourable Court considered in detail about the various grants made in the village under Exs.A1 and C6 and came to a conclusion that the original grant to the appellant Madam confirmed by Ex.A2 was not a whole village. The learned counsel therefore contended that if the grant was not of whole village, and when the appellant purchased the subsequent 2 Pangus in 1867, it cannot be held that the appellant did not own both the varams merely on the basis of subsequent purchase made by the appellant in 1867 under Exs.P472 to P474. The learned counsel would contend that under Act 30 of 1963 what has to be shown is possession of both varams whereas under Estate Lands Act, the concept was entirely different and so long as the appellant continued to render the service as provided under T.D.482 of 1862, the appellant was entitled for the grant of patta under Section 8(2) (ii) of the Act 1963. 14. 14. The learned counsel relied upon 1996 (1) L.W. 63 ( A.T.S. Chinnaswami Chettiar etc. v. Sri Kari Varadaraja Perumal Temple & another ) for the proposition that the claim of adverse possession cannot be countenanced, in as much as, after coming into force of the Act, the right, title and interest in Minor Inam lands vested free from encumbrances with the Government and Ryotwari pattas had to be claimed only under the provisions of the Act and not outside the Act. The learned counsel referred to 1978 TNLJ 441 ( Swaminathan & another v. Sri Pongaliamman Temple ) in support of his contention that when once there was no alienation by the Inamdar, there was no scope for holding that the objectors held Kudivaram right, so as to claim patta under the Act. The learned counsel relied upon 1994 (1) LW 73 ( K.S. Prem Sugar v. The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy etc.) for the proposition that the right contemplated under Section 13 of the Act in respect of the building within the limits of the Inam lands in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed day will not extend to a claim of a building outside of the claim as Kudivaramdar. In other words, it was held that if the person claiming any right under Section 13 of the Act, failed to establish his right as Kudivaramdar, there is no scope for recognising his right under the said section, merely because the building situated within the limits of Inam land belonged to him. The learned counsel relied upon 1997 (2) LW 159 (Periya Muthu Naicker & another v. Arulmighu Sevantheeswarar Koil, rep. by its Trustee ) for the proposition that unless it is proved that the subject matter of Inam which was granted for the support or maintenance of the institution was transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heirs, etc., have been in exclusive possession for continuous period of 12 years prior to 1-4-1960 subject to his payment of the consideration as stipulated therein the right of the institution cannot be interfered with. It was held therein that even if the possession of lands was not with the temple for over 12 years or even 60 years, the person in possession unless make out that their possession and those of their predecessor in interest are derived from a legally valid transfer of title by the temple by way of sale, Section 8(2) (i) of the Act would not apply and in such cases, it is only a residuary provision in Section 8 (2) (ii) of the Act and consequently the temple alone would be successfully entitled to patta. The learned counsel also referred to 1978 TNLJ page 408 (Arumugha Ammal & another v. Visha Kattalai ) wherein it was held that to attract the provision of Section 8 (2) (i) (a) or (b) of the Act, as a condition precedent the land should have been transferred by the Inamdar himself and not by a person who has nothing to do with either with the institution or with the land itself. The learned counsel referred to the above decision in the context of the claim made by the objectors on the basis of the various pattas issued by Izaradars on behalf of the Inamdar. The learned counsel also referred to 66 L.W. 536 = AIR 1953 SC. 195 (B. Satyanarayana & others v. Konduru Venkatapayya & others ) for the proposition that the entries contained in the Inam fair register deserves greater value than any other piece of evidence. He also placed reliance upon 1983 TNLJ 126 ( Vellaisamy v. Sri Chinnasellandiamman Temple, by its Trustee ) in support of his contention that merely on the basis of certain documents, it cannot be contended that the presumption under Section 44 of the Act was rebutted when the Inam fair register extract and entries therein evidentially prove that the grant was of both the varams. It was held therein that as held by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in (1978) 91 L.W. 142 ( The Karivaradaraja Perumal Temple at Pollachi v. K.S.J. Raju Chettiar & other ), the expression “Lawfully entitled to Kudivaram” occurring in Section 8 (1) would only be applicable to the cases where the person claiming to be entitled to Ryotwari patta, is in possession to show that he was entitled to Kudivaram interest under the very terms of grant of the Inam. The learned counsel also relied upon AIR 1965 SC. 516 ( C. Periaswami Gounder and others v. Sundaresa Ayyar and others ) to press his contention that the entries made in the Inam fair register were based on an elaborate enquiry, and that the Inam statement is only one of the piece of evidence which the Inam Commissioner might have taken into consideration in compiling the Inam fair register and therefore, the recitals in the statement must give place to the recitals in the Inam register though an attempt should be made to harmonise them if possible. The learned counsel relied upon 87 L.W. 57 = 1974 (1) MLJ 124 ( Gopal Naidu v. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Project, Madurai and others ), in support of the contention about the importance to be given to the recitals in the Inam fair register for reaching any conclusion about the grant as to whether it was of both the varams to the grantee. 15. As against the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondent would contend, at the outset, that the grant being Dharmadayam and the description of the grantee in Co1.8 is to the effect “for the support of the Madam called Thiruvanmaiyur Deivasigamani Desikar Samadhi at St. Thome, Madras,” that Samadhi being not a temple and admittedly in Ex.C1 the Inamdar himself having stated that “this village of Adambakkam is a principal settlement Inam granted to the predecessors in office of the Tiruvanmaiyur Madam as a service grant for the purpose of carrying Pooja to the Samadhi,” it cannot be stated that the service is to a temple and in the circumstances, the claim of the appellant not being sustainable, no relief can be granted to the appellant. The learned counsel relied upon 91 L.W. 122 S.N. = AIR 1978 SC 1174 ( Nagu Reddiar and others v. Banu Reddiar and others ), with particular reference to paragraph 17 to hold that such a service to a Samadhi is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel relied upon 91 L.W. 122 S.N. = AIR 1978 SC 1174 ( Nagu Reddiar and others v. Banu Reddiar and others ), with particular reference to paragraph 17 to hold that such a service to a Samadhi is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel also relied upon 67 L.W. 7 = AIR 1953 SC 491 ( Saraswathi Ammal and another v. Rajagopal Ammal ) (Paragraph 7) to contend that the building of a Samadhi or a Tomb over remains of a person and the making of provision for the purpose of Guru pooja and other ceremonies in connection with the same cannot be recognised as religious purpose according to Hindu law. The learned counsel also referred to entries found in Cl.15 and contended that it only referred to the name of an individual and not the Madam and while the grant is a Dharmadayam, if the Pooja is for Samadhi, as found in Col.7, 13 and 15, it cannot be held that the service is to the temple so as to sustain the claim of the appellant. The learned counsel relied upon (1934) 39 L.W. 389 ( LE. Subramania Oduvar v. Srvaikuntam Kailasanatha Swami Koil ) and contended that when the recitals clearly show that the grant was to a particular individual or a particular family and the fact that incidentally the temple received some benefit in the shape of service to be performed, that will not make the grant in favour of the institution, but the grant could only be to the individual who is burdened with the performance of service. The learned counsel would contend that as per the ruling of the learned Judge even the use of the word “Devadayam” in the Inam register is not decisive of the question whether the grant is to the temple or to an individual. The learned counsel therefore, contended that the various entries in the Inam fair register would go to show that the grant was in favour of the individual namely Deivasigamani Pandaram and the service to Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy Temple in the Madam is only incidental and therefore the grant being in favour of an individual, the appellant is not entitled to claim initial presumption under Section 44 of the Act. The learned counsel further contended that what is provided under section 44 of the Act is only a rebuttable presumption, that by virtue of the conduct of the parties as has been elaborately stated such as the innumerable sale deeds, mortgage deeds, settlement deeds, relating to the period even prior to 1900 between the villagers having been filed, that the Inamdar having not objected to such transactions at any time, and on the other hand, Exs.P467 and 468 disclose mat the Inamdar had recognised such transfers by granting fresh pattas in favour of the purchasers, the Inamdar was concerned only with the collection of Beriz and cess due from the ryots while the ryots were at liberty to dispose of the lands, provided they paid the arrears of land revenue to the Inamdar. The learned counsel relied upon 1993 Suppl. IV SCC.419 to show that the conduct of the parties would be very relevant for determining the rights of the parties. The learned counsel also referred to (1936) 43 L.W. 486. Muhammad Gosukani & others v. Muhammad Sekka Maracayar & others to contend that there was no evidence forthcoming from the appellant to prove enjoyment of both the varams. The learned counsel by referring to Ex.P7, (at page 19 of the file SR No. 24/B1/73) which consisted of patta with certain annexures including a receipt dated 14.4.1923 contended that the recitals therein show only a collection of money and not ownership. The learned counsel would therefore, contend that the appellant had only Melvaram right alone and not the both varams as claimed by it. 16. On the basis of the various materials placed before the Court and the rival contentions of the parties, the question that arises for consideration in these appeals are as to whether the appellant was holding both the varams so as to exclude the rights of the villagers for grant of patta under Act 30 of 1963. 17. 16. On the basis of the various materials placed before the Court and the rival contentions of the parties, the question that arises for consideration in these appeals are as to whether the appellant was holding both the varams so as to exclude the rights of the villagers for grant of patta under Act 30 of 1963. 17. For considering and arriving at a decision on that question, the relevant materials that can be usefully referred to are, i) title deed No. 482 dated 5-4-1862; ii) the Inam extract from Inam fair register in respect of T.D. No. 482 dated 3-4-1862 (found in Vol 7/11, page 97 C4 series) iii) the order of the Settlement Officer, Salem dated 14-10-1971 in proceedings No S.R.1/Act 31/63/71 holding that the grant in T.D.482 was only a minor Inam (found at page 63 of file No. SR. No. 24/31 and 24/BIA/GR/30/63/MMIA); iv) the Statement of Izaradar Thiru Raja Bahdar before the Settelment Officer, Chittoor in the proceedings initiated under the Estates Abolition Act (Madras Estate Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari Act) Act 26 of 1948 stating that Adheenam was holding both the varams (found at page 21 of file 7/11); v) the order of the Settlement Officer, Chittoor, dated 9-2-1950 under Act 26 of 1948 holding that the village of Adambakkam is an Inam estate, but the Madam held only Melvaram and not Kudivaram also (found at page 35 of file 7/11); vi) the subsequent order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvalluvur, dated 27.4.1954 after remand holding that it is an Inam estate falling under Section 2 (7) of the Act 26 of 1948 (found at page 81 of file 7/11); vii) the order of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, dated 3-3-1955 in A.S. 47 of 1954 setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvalluvur dated 27-4-1954; viii) the judgment in S.T.A.7 of 1958 dated 3-1-1961 by this Court confirming the order of the Tribunal (found at page 97 of file Vol. 7/11); ix) application dated 7-2-1973 filed by the appellant for the grant of patta under Section 8 (2) (ii) read with Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, 1967 for an extent of 308.80 cawnies covered by the grant (found at page No. 117, file No. SR No. 24/B1 and 24BIA/GR/30/63/MMIA; x) printed memo of facts dated 31-3-1973 filed by the objectors against the claim of the appellant (found at page No. 135, file No. SR. No. 24/B1 and 24BIA/GR/30/63/MMIA; xi) written statement dated 4-4-1973 submitted on behalf of the ryots, Adambakkam village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu before the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu for a declaration that T.D. No. 482 of Adambakkam village is a Melvaram grant only (page 127, file No. SR No. 24/B1 and 24BIA/GR/30/63/MMIA; xii) Ex. R2 document No. 2074 of 1902 dated 24-12-1902, the fishery lease agreement between Solayappan Nattaan and the appellant Adheenam (found at page 719 of Vol. 3/11); xiii) Ex.P7 patta issued by the appellant Adheenam in favour of one Kuppusamy Iyer, S/o Krishnaswamy Iyer of the year 1918, 1923 and related documents (found in file No. SR 24/B1/73); xiv) Exs.P471 to 474 the evidence of P.W.1 in O.S. 84 of 1915, the judgment in the said suit, and the connected sale deeds marked in the said suit (found at page Nos. 233 to 275, Vol. 2/2); xv) subsequent patta Ex.P722 issued by the appellant Adheenam in favour of one Sangamala Tayaramma (found at page 429 in file No. 2/2; xvi) copy of patta issued by the Izaradar A. Raja Bandar in favour of one Satyakirti, son of A. Satyanadan, dated 1-3-1969 (Ex.P17) (found at page 865, Vol. 4/11); 18. A perusal of the Inam fair register disclosed that the class of Inam was a Dharmadayam, namely a charitable purpose, that the description of the Inam is specifically stated to be one for the service to be performed for the worship of Sri Kalahastiswara Swami temple situated at Madam called Tiruvanmaiyur Deivasigamani Desigar Samadhi at St. Thome, Madras. The tenure is noted in Col. 10 to the effect “so long as the service is performed”. The name of the original grantee has been noted as Deivasigamani P andaram and the place and residence is noted at Co1.16 and 17 as St. Thome Madras, Sri Kalahastiswara Swami Deivasigamani Desigar Samadhi Madam (Guru of High Priest for the time being). The tenure is noted in Col. 10 to the effect “so long as the service is performed”. The name of the original grantee has been noted as Deivasigamani P andaram and the place and residence is noted at Co1.16 and 17 as St. Thome Madras, Sri Kalahastiswara Swami Deivasigamani Desigar Samadhi Madam (Guru of High Priest for the time being). In Col.20 and 21 of the Inam fair register, it is noted that the shrotrium was granted for the service of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy in the Madam of Deivasigamani Desigar Samadhi, a branch of which was at first located at Tiruvanmiyur of Saidapet Taluk, but at present kept up at St. Thome, one of the suburbs of Madras, the head or senior priest has his Madam at Kundarakudi near Madurai. The Deputy Collectors opinion and recommendation as noted in Col.21 was approved and confirmed by the Inam Commissioner on 3-4-1852. 19. Therefore a reading of the above factors go to show that the Inam was a Dharamadayam, namely, for the charitable purpose for rendering service to Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy Temple situated at Madam called Deivasigamani Desikar Samadhi Madam which is an institution. A reference to Deivasigamani Pandaram in Column 13 could therefore be only for the purpose of representing the institution and having regard to several entries confirming that the grant was for the purpose of rendering service to Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy temple situated at the Madam, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the grant was in favour of any individual. Similarly construing the expression contained in Co1.8, 16 and 17 or in Col.21 with reference to the name of the Madam as Deivasigamani Desikar Samadhi or Sannadhi, it is of no significance, so long as the service as per the grant is related to the one to be performed for the worship of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy temple situated at the Madam. In that view, the statement of Izaradar referring to the Madam as a Samadhi will also not in any way alter the purpose of the grant which has been expressed in very many words in the Inam fair register. Added to that the statement of Endowment Assistant Commissioner as found in Ex.C12 also confirms the position that the service is being performed to the temple as on that date. Added to that the statement of Endowment Assistant Commissioner as found in Ex.C12 also confirms the position that the service is being performed to the temple as on that date. Therefore, we hold that the grant is to the Institution namely Tiruvanmaiyur Devivasigamani Desikar Sannadhi Madam at St. Thome, Madras for the purpose of performing the services of worship of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy temple situated at the Matam. Having regard to our said finding, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the grant is not in favour of temple, but in favour of Samadhi and therefore not sustainable in law. We also hold that the grant having been made in favour of the institution for charitable purpose, the Institution is entitled for the benefits as provided under Section 44 of the Act leading to the initial presumption that the institution was holding both the varams. In view of our said conclusion, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent reported in AIR 1978 SC 1174 = 91 L.W. 122 S.N.; AIR 1953 SC 491 = 67 L.W. 7 ( Saraswathi Ammal & another v. Rajagopal Ammal ) as well as (1934) 39 L.W. 389 ( E. Subramania Oduvar v. Srivaikuntam Kailasanatha Swami Koil ) are of no assistance to the respondents. 20. We then come to the most crucial question as to whether the presumption under Section 44 has been satisfactorily rebutted at the instance of the respondents in this case? of the various circumstances and materials relied upon by the respondents, the relevant circumstances and materials could be gathered as under: (i) that the Inam fair register Ex.R1 does not show that the institution was holding both the varams; ii) that the pattas issued by the Inamdar as well as its Izaradar in favour of the respective villagers issued on various occasions confirmed that the appellant itself was conscious of the fact that it was holding only a Melvaram and what was collected was only a beriz and cess; iii) that the endorsement made by the counsel for the appellant in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, Salem in the proceedings S.R.1/Act 31 of 1963/71 to the effect that the appellant was not pressing its claim of free hold rights, meaning thereby, mat the appellant was not pressing its right of holding the lands in question absolutely. iv) that the proceedings initiated under Act 26 of 1948 by the Settlement Officer-III, Chittoor culminating in an order dated 9.2.1950 holding that the Madam held only Melvaram and not Kudivaram also, that the said order after having been set aside in A.S. No. 51 of 1953, by order dated 28-12-1953 the proceedings were remitted back to the Settlement Officer to consider afresh after permitting the parties to adduce further evidence, that by a subsequent order dated 27.41954, the Assistant Settlement Officer held mat it was an Inam Estate falling under Section 2 (7) of the Act 26 of 1948 and the said order having been set aside by the Estates Abolition Tribunal in A.S. No. 47 of 1954 on 3.3.1955 which was also confirmed by this Honourable Court in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958 on 3.1.1961. The inescapable conclusion would be that the appellant was holding only Melvaram, in as much as, while setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and while confirming the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, this Honourable Court did not upset the findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer to the effect that the appellant was holding only Melvaram and not Kudivaram also; v) that the statement of Raja Bahdar before the Settlement Officer, Chittoor to the effect that the Adheenam was holding both the varams was not accepted by the Settlement Officer, Chittoor when he rendered a finding to the effect that the Adheenam held only Melvaram which order was not challenged by the appellant; vi) that the Settlement Officer in his order dated 14-10-1971 while reaching its conclusion that the grant as mentioned in Ex.P1 was part village grant or Minor Inam grant, also relied upon the Judgment of this Honourable Court in S.T.A.7 of 1958 dated 3-1-1961 in which the earlier order of the Settlement Officer, Chittoor dated 9-2-1950 as well as the subsequent order dated 27-4-1954 of Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvalluvur got merged. The order dated 14-10-1971 holding that the grant in Ex.P1 was a Minor Inam grant has become final and conclusive; vii) that when the Assistant Settlement Officer Thiruvalluvur held in 1954 that the Adheenam had no Kudivaram right. The order dated 14-10-1971 holding that the grant in Ex.P1 was a Minor Inam grant has become final and conclusive; vii) that when the Assistant Settlement Officer Thiruvalluvur held in 1954 that the Adheenam had no Kudivaram right. The said finding of the Assistant Settlement Officer was not challenged at the instance of the appellant; viii) that the pattas granted by the Inamdar as well as the Izaradars specifically mentioned that the patta holders can dispose of the lands subject to the condition that the arrears of land revenue is fully paid meaning thereby that the ownership of the land never vested with the Adheenam and that the Adheenam is only interested in the collection of money and none else. Patta being a document of title, there would have been no scope for the appellant to issue a patta to the villagers if they were only holding lease hold rights; ix) that when admittedly the village had 48 Pangus shares and in respect of 2 Pangus alone, the appellant Adheenam could validly claim right of both the varams by virtue of Exhibits marked in O.S. 84 of 1915 and in the absence of any other proof for claiming such right in respect of remaining 46 Pangus, it can only be held that the appellant was having only Melvaram right and not Kudivaram along with it; x) that the evidence of C.W.1 by name C. Ganeshan, Settlement Deputy Tahsildar, Branch Settlement Office and Exs.C1 to C13 disclose that the compensation for the acquisition of the lands by the Government on different occasions was paid only to the owners of the lands direct and not to the Adheenam and that the Adheenam never questioned such action of the Government in paying the compensation to the concerned owners of the land though the Adheenam was fully aware of the acquisition as well as the payment of compensation in as much as the relevant entries, were subsequently made in the Inam fair register reducing the Jodi payable by the appellant Adheenam by virtue of the acquisitions made. In such circumstances, if really Adheenam was holding Kudivaram right also, the appellant Adheenam would not have kept quite when compensation for such acquisitions were not paid to Adheenam. In such circumstances, if really Adheenam was holding Kudivaram right also, the appellant Adheenam would not have kept quite when compensation for such acquisitions were not paid to Adheenam. Further, fact that the entries in the Adangals for faslies 1356 (1947) 1357 (1948) 1363 (1954) 1375 (1965) mentioning the names of the respective villagers as holders of the land having not been repudiated or objected by the appellant at any point of time also confirmed that the appellant never had Kudivaram right as now sought to be claimed. 21. All the above factors cumulatively go to show that the appellant never held Kudivaram right, that the villagers as ryots were holding the lands, but by virtue of the grant made in T.D. No. 482 of 1862 confirming Melvaram right in favour of the appellant, they were obliged to pay certain amount by way of beriz or cess to the appellant Adheenam. The appellant Adheenam also recognised such Kudivaram rights owned by the ryots for over several decades by permitting them to dispose of their ownership in the lands while retaining its right to collect the beriz or cess amount. It is also significant to note that at no point of time, any of the ryots have recognised the claim of the appellant for having held any Kudivaram right in the Inam lands. There is no material available on record to show that Kudivaram rights of the ryots was at any time disputed or denied either at the instance of the appellant or at the instance of any other party. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that merely because the extent of wet and dry lands have been mentioned in the Inam fair register that by itself would lead to the conclusion that the Inamdar was holding both the varams, in the light of various other factors culled out from the records placed before the lower authorities. 22. The cancellation of notification dated 23-3-1950 fixing the rent under the Madras Estates Lands (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 by G.O.Ms. No. 512 dated 25.2.1964 by itself would not lead to the conclusion that there was no ryoti lands or riots with occupancy rights therein. 22. The cancellation of notification dated 23-3-1950 fixing the rent under the Madras Estates Lands (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 by G.O.Ms. No. 512 dated 25.2.1964 by itself would not lead to the conclusion that there was no ryoti lands or riots with occupancy rights therein. In fact, the issuance of the earlier notification as well as the subsequent cancellation was by virtue of the proceedings issued under the Estates Abolition (Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948, whereby the lands in question were initially declared as Inam estate, which was subsequently varied by virtue of the ultimate decision rendered by this Honourable Court in S.T.A.7 of 1958, dated 3-1-1961. Eventhough ultimately it was declared that the lands in question cannot be construed as Inam Estate under the Estates Abolition Act, the fact remains that a finding came to be rendered in those proceedings to the effect that the appellant Madam had only Melvaram right and not Kudivaram right along with it. In so far as the said finding was concerned, the appellant never bothered to question the same. The ultimate conclusion of this Honourable Court in S.T.A. 7 of 1958 was mainly on the ground that the Inam in question was a minor Inam and that it was not of the whole village. While reaching the said conclusion, what weighed very much with this Honourable Court was the various other minor Inams granted subsequent to the grant made in T.D. No. 482 of 1862. Therefore the finding reached by the Settlement Officer, Chittoor to the effect that the appellant was holding only Melvaram right was not in any way disturbed, though the ultimate conclusion of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the land in question was an Inam Estate was set aside. In any event as held by us earlier, the ruling that the lands in question were not Inam estates falling under the provisions of the Estates Abolition (Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948 would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there were no ryoti lands or ryots with occupancy rights therein. 23. In any event as held by us earlier, the ruling that the lands in question were not Inam estates falling under the provisions of the Estates Abolition (Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948 would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there were no ryoti lands or ryots with occupancy rights therein. 23. The contention of the appellant that it was not a party to the various transactions is wholly irrelevant in as much as when the appellant Adheenam itself permitted the parties to resort to any amount of transfers subject only to the condition that the arrears payable to the Adheenam should be cleared, there was no scope for involving the appellants in any of the transactions indulged in by the villagers amongst themselves. The appellant cannot also validly dispute the transactions and the Civil Court verdict covered by Exs.P471 to 473 conclusively established that the appellant held both the varams only in respect of the lands covered by Patta No. 7 to an extent of 2 Pangus out of total 48 Pangus in the village. 24. As regards the contention that in the land acquisition proceedings, no notice was given to the appellant and that no finding was rendered therein while granting compensation is totally unacceptable. It is not the case of the appellant that it was not aware of the acquisition made by the Government on more than one occasion. In fact, by virtue of the acquisition made, the consequent reduction in the Jodi payable was made as reflected in the Inam fair register. The very fact that the appellant accepted such reduction in the Jodi payable without raising any protest itself is sufficient to show that the appellant was aware of the land acquisition proceedings and the reduction of the extent in the land covered by the grant. It is quite unbelievable that in spite of a well organised office at its command, the appellant did not take any steps either to question the acquisition or about the nonpayment of the compensation even after it was brought to its notice that there was a reduction in the Jodi payable by virtue of the acquisition effected at the instance of the State. Therefore the said argument of the Adheenam is purely an after thought and does not in any way satisfactorily explain that the land acquisition proceedings and the compensation paid to the actual land owners would not affect its claim for Kudivaram right. 25. The other contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the finding relating to purchase of 2 Pangus by the appellant by the Courts below was a mistake in as much as those Inamdars had nothing to do with the present lands in question and therefore it was wrongly quoted is also totally unacceptable. It is not disputed that the village consisted of 48 Pangus. It has also been held by this Court in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958 that the Inam in question was only a minor Inam, in as much as, there were certain lands left over after the grant in T.D. No. 482 of 1862, and the left over lands were covered by certain other grants. Therefore it is futile to contend that the findings relating to purchase of 2 Pangus by the appellant Adheenam at a later point of time cannot be correlated with the rest of the Pangus in the village and that the findings of the Court below was a mistake. The very fact that this Honourable Court found in S.T.A.7 of 1958 that the grant was not of the whole village and that therefore the Inam in question was a minor Inam itself confirmed the position that the village consisted of 48 Pangus and the appellant could establish its right of Kudivaram only in respect of 2 Pangus out of 48 Pangus by virtue of Exs.P471 to 474. In the circumstances, the said contention of the appellant is a total misreading of the evidence available on record and the same is therefore rejected. Therefore having regard to the documentary evidence to which appellant Adheenam itself was a party such as pattas, earlier orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and in the absence of any entry in the Inam fair register to show that the appellant had both the varams, we hold that the Kudivaram right vests with the respondents and the orders of the lower authorities in granting patta in favour of the respective owners of Kudivaram right was fully justified. We are also fortified by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1997 2 L.W. 323 = 1996 (7) SCC 467 ( Sri Vedaranyaswami Devasthanam v. A.C. Dharma Devi and others ) wherein it was held that where the temple itself treated the respondents and their predecessors in interest as those who had Kudivaram right and the action taken was for the recovery of arrears of kist by way of sale of the Kudivaram right, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the institution confirmed Kudivaram right in favour of the respondents therein and what was collected from them was only a kist (revenue) and it was not by way of rent. Applying the said principle to the fact of this case, we conclude that what was collected by the appellant Adheenam from the various ryots was only a kist and not rent and that the respondents retained their Kudivaram right while paying kist to the appellant Adheenam. Accordingly the grant of patta in their favour by the lower Court was fully justified. In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.

Adheenakarthar v. Thiru M. Pattabhiraman