Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed against entertaining the Inam Appeal in CMA (Inam Appeal).No: 112 of 2005 before the learned II Assistant Judge, (Inam Tribunal) City Civil Court, Chennai.). This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings in C.M.A.(Inam Appeal) No:112 of 2005, on the file o the Minor Inams Tribunal, II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, since the said Tribunal exceeded in entertaining the said Appeal which was alleged as hopelessly barred by limitation and hit by other legal bars as well. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) One Arulmighu Thirumangaleeswarar Temple, through its Fit Person has preferred an Appeal under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Act 30/1963) before the Inams Tribunal. The appeal has been preferred against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai-17, dated 10.10.1966 granting Patta to the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein, who was the brother of the petitioner. (b) The lands in Survey Nos.230/2 and 227/3 in Koyambedu Village together with a larger extent were forming part of an even larger extent which originally formed part of the Zamin estate of Thirumangalam. The estate was notified and taken over on 9.1.1951 under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948. The neighbouring Koyambedu Village was an Inam Estate. It was notified and taken over on 1.10.1951 under the said Act. In the Survey and Settlement effected thereafter, both the villages were taken as a single unit as Koyambedu Village. The lands in Inam Koyambedu were measured as Survey Nos.1 to 206 and the lands in Zamin Thirumangalam as Survey Nos.207 to 233. The subject lands which are part of Survey Nos.227 and 230 were originally part of Zamin Thirumangalam. (c) It is alleged that the lands referred above belonged to the father of the petitioner, who had acquired the melwaram right and the kudiwaram right (in his wife's name) in 1929 vide registered sale deed. He had subsequently settled the same in favour of his sons, viz., the petitioner and the fourth respondent under settlement deeds dated 7.9.1954, registered as document Nos.980 and 981 both of 1954. He had subsequently settled the same in favour of his sons, viz., the petitioner and the fourth respondent under settlement deeds dated 7.9.1954, registered as document Nos.980 and 981 both of 1954. (d) A Legislation to abolish Minor Inams Lands and convert them to Ryotwari lands was enacted during 1963 by Madras Act XXX of 1963. During the year 1964, Tamil Nadu Housing Board commenced acquisition proceedings for the West Madras Neighbourhood scheme. At the instance of the Special Deputy Collector, for land Acquisition, State Housing Board Schemes, Madras-1, the Assistant Settlement Officer subjected the Minor Inam lands in Koyambedu Village which have been vested by the Government on the "Appointed Day" as per the Act XXX of 1963 to Ryotwari Settlement. (e) At the instance of the Special Deputy Collector for land acquisition, State Housing Board Schemes, Madras, the Assistant Settlement Officer conducted proceedings during October 1966, with a view to determine the fact as to whether anyone is entitled for Ryotwari patta under Act 30 of 1963. In the course of the said enquiry, it was found that three minor Inam lands were left since the acquisitions had not covered those minor Inam lands. The minor Inam TD.1148 was registered as Thirumangaleeswarar Manibam. The petitioner and the fourth respondent who were the claimants in the said proceedings, were examined along with the Karnam of the village by the Assistant Settlement Officer. It was contended by the claimants that the lands in Survey No.227/3 with an extent of 1.51 acres belonged to Mr.A.R.Krishnamoorthy and the lands in Survey No.230/2, with an extent of 1.36 acres belonged to Mr.A.R.Rajagopalan and Mr.A.R.Krishnamoorthy jointly. They had exhibited the Settlement Deeds of the year 1954, through which they had acquired the interest in the subject lands, which had been originally purchased by their mother in the year 1929. It was also found that the lands in Paimash Numbers 38, 42 and 43 correlated to Survey Numbers 230/2 and 227/3 were mentioned in the documents as Thriumangaleeswara Manibam. The Karnam of the village was also examined. After enquiry on 10.10.1966, the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order granting patta jointly in the name of the petitioner and his brother subject to the condition that they should pay the consideration as per rules. The Karnam of the village was also examined. After enquiry on 10.10.1966, the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order granting patta jointly in the name of the petitioner and his brother subject to the condition that they should pay the consideration as per rules. Admittedly, the petitioner and his brother had accordingly remitted the consideration as demanded by the authorities concerned and obtained patta in their names. They had also conveyed the lands in favour of the company known as M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt Ltd., Thus according to the petitioner the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer after due publication and service of notices as per rules is proper and cannot be questioned. (f) However, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, addressed a letter dated 3.2.2003 to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai and to the Member Secretary, CMDA not to approve any lay out proposal involving the lands comprised in the Survey Numbers referred to above. He also wrote to the Sub Registrar of Anna Nagar, asking him not to register any sale deed pertaining to the lands comprised in the said Survey Numbers. Similar letter was also addressed tot he Collector of Chennai and information regarding the ownership was sought for which he also sent a reply giving the appropriate information which was published in the Addendum to the printed A.Register in 1973. Subsequently, a petition was filed through the first respondent herein on 27.9.2003 to the Settlement Officer at the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement Office for cancellation of patta issued in the names of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. However, the said petition was rejected by the said authority for want of jurisdiction and directed the first respondent to approach the appropriate Tribunal. The Tribunal however, initially appears to have not entertained the appeal on the ground of limitation and want of locus standi to the first respondent who was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Settlement Officer, which were sought to be challenged. Thereafter the First respondent has presented the appeal before the Inam Tribunal, which had not taken on file and had returned the same with certain queries. (g) While that be so, Without answering those queries in the Inam Appeal, the first respondent-temple filed Writ Petition No.4491 of 2004, before this Court, challenging the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 10.10.1966. (g) While that be so, Without answering those queries in the Inam Appeal, the first respondent-temple filed Writ Petition No.4491 of 2004, before this Court, challenging the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 10.10.1966. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court refusing to accept the contention that the temple was not aware of the possession of the petitioner and the fourth respondent for more than several years. The order of this Court passed in W.P.No:4491 of 2004 is as follows:- "The Writ Petition is filed for the relief of the issueance of the Writ of Certiorari calling for the records inSR.20/66 SDT ACt 30/63(ASO) dated 10.10.1966 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same. 2. There is absolute no reason whatsoever to entertain the writ petition at this belated point of time. there is an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under the Tamil Nadu Regulations Estate and Inams Abolition and Ryotwari Schemes Act, wherein there was a categoric finding by the Assistant Settlement Officer that the respondents 4 and 5 were in possession of more than 37 years. The Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order n the year 1966. The order of 1966 put in issue in 2004. The legal right accrued on the respondents 4 and 5 herein would not be so easily brushed aside on the simple ground stated by the petitioner that the fraud committed by respondents 4 and 5 therein can be agitated any point of time. It is not as if the respondents were not enjoying the property. The enjoyment is open to the knowledge of the petitioner. As seen from the order impugned, respondents 4 and 5 were in possession for more than 37 years prior to passing of the order in the year 1966 and thereafter also they are continued to be in possession with the knowledge of the petitioner herein. By no stretch of imagination we can accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the temple came to be aware of the possession only recently. hence I see no reason to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected WPMPs are also dismissed." (h) The first respondent-temple thereafter filed an appeal in W.A.BNo.2499 of 2004, against the order passed in the above Writ Petition. hence I see no reason to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected WPMPs are also dismissed." (h) The first respondent-temple thereafter filed an appeal in W.A.BNo.2499 of 2004, against the order passed in the above Writ Petition. But the said Writ Appeal was withdrawn by them subsequently on 15.9.2004 without obtaining liberty to file a fresh Petition before the appropriate forum. (i) After withdrawal of the Writ Appeal, the first respondent-temple again presented the Inam Appeal before the Inam Tribunal stating that the appeal has been preferred within the period of limitation. Thereafter the Inam Tribunal took the Appeal on its file. Aggrieved over the same, the present Revision has been filed. 3. Mr. Kuberan, Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the Inam Appeal has been preferred after the period of limitation is over, against the order of the High Court, suppressing the fact of the order passed in the Writ Petition and also that the alleged temple is not in existence even in 1966 when the Assistant Settlement Officer passed the order. 4. Per Contra, Mr. Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-temple would contend that at the time of passing of the order on 10.10.1966, no notice was issued to the Temple and therefore the Temple had no knowledge about the passing of the order and according to him, the lands are grant (maniam) for the temple and the same cannot be sold by the parties. 5. As regards the first contention of the revision petitioner that the Inam Appeal before the Inam Tribunal (II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai), has been preferred after the limitation period is over, we have to find out as to how much is the Limitation period and whether the Inam Appeal has been preferred in time? In Pages 9,10,11,12 and 13 of the Additional typed set of papers copies of certain letters are enclosed. Those are the letters written by the Commissioner of H.R & C.E., addressed to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, Member Secretary, CMDA and Special Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar etc., requesting them not to take any further action on any application filed by the petitioners. The said letters are dated 3.2.2003. Those are the letters written by the Commissioner of H.R & C.E., addressed to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, Member Secretary, CMDA and Special Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar etc., requesting them not to take any further action on any application filed by the petitioners. The said letters are dated 3.2.2003. Therefore, it can be presumed that at least from 3.2.2003, the Government had knowledge about the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. M/s.Sri Krishna tiles and potteries (Madras) Pvt., Ltd., have sent letter dated 5.2.2003 and telegram dated 20.2.2003 objecting to the letter of the Commissioner of HR & CE and also protesting against the letters sent by the HR & CE Department. 6. Thereafter on 26.9.2003, the Fit Person representing the first respondent preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer in the Directorate of Survey and Settlement Office, Madras. In the said appeal the petitioner and the 4th respondent have filed reply and objections against the appeal preferred by the Fit Person and after enquiry, by order dated 23.10.2003 the appeal preferred by the first respondent was rejected for want of jurisdiction because such appeals can be filed only before the Inam Tribunal (II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai). After dismissal of the said appeal, the first respondent moved the said Inam Tribunal and filed CMA. But the same was returned on various grounds including limitation. Thereafter the Writ Petition No:4491 of 2004 was filed before this court which was dismissed in limine by order dated 1.3.2004 and the actual order has been already extracted earlier. Thereafter the first respondent preferred Writ Appeal No. 2494 of 2004 which was also subsequently withdrawn without citing any reason or obtaining leave of the court to file fresh Petition before the appropriate forum. After withdrawing the Writ Appeal, suppressing the orders passed in the Writ Petition, the first respondent represented the Inam Appeal on 29.10.2003, with the following endorsement since on the earlier occasion, the same appeal was returned for maintainability:- "The appellant had no notice of the patta proceedings. The order of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 10.10.1966 was not communicated to the appellant under Section 45(1) of the Act. The appellant came to know about the order only on 26.9.2003. The appeal is filed within three months from the date of the knowledge. The order of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 10.10.1966 was not communicated to the appellant under Section 45(1) of the Act. The appellant came to know about the order only on 26.9.2003. The appeal is filed within three months from the date of the knowledge. Hence the appeal is in time." 7. Under sub Section (3) of Section 11 of the Minor Inams Act. to file an appeal before the Inam Tribunal, the limitation period is one year for the Government and for any other person it is three months. However, the Tribunal by using its discretion can extent the further time by two months. As per the letter sent by the Commissioner of HR & CE, the Government was aware of the grant of patta and subsequent sale in favour of M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt., Ltd., at least from 3.2.2003 as seen from his letters sent to various authorities like Corporation, CMDA, Sub Registrar etc., So from 3.2.2003, the appeal should have been filed on or before 2.5.2003 i.e., within three months. Even if the court gives further time of two months on the application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal can at the maximum grant two months as per Sub Section (3) of Section 11 of the Minor Inams Act. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed on or before 2.7.2003. But the appeal was actually filed only on 29.10.2003 and even without an application to condone the delay the Tribunal has taken up the appeal on file. Therefore the Inam Appeal itself has been barred by limitation even assuming 3.2.2003 as the date of knowledge of the Government. IN fact notice has been given to the Tahsildar, Saidapet Taluk before passing an order on 10.10.1966 and actually, the limitation starts from 10.10.1966. Thus, the Inam Appeal preferred by the first respondent-temple is hopelessly barred by limitation. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent-temple would contend that no notice was issued to the temple as required under law and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is an admitted fact that no notice was issued to the temple as seen from the order dated 10.10.1966. The notice has been issued to the Tahsildar and notice has been published and served as per rules. But no representation or objection was filed by the Tahsildar. 9. It is an admitted fact that no notice was issued to the temple as seen from the order dated 10.10.1966. The notice has been issued to the Tahsildar and notice has been published and served as per rules. But no representation or objection was filed by the Tahsildar. 9. In paragraph 5 of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer itself it is stated that the enquiry revealed that the temple as such was not in existence for the last so many years. Thus, on 10.10.1966 itself when the order was passed, the temple was not in existence. Ex.R.1 in the said order is the sale deed executed in favour of the mother of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Therefore it is clear that even in the year 1966, the temple was not in existence. The order dated 3.2.2003 to various authorities by the Commissioner of HR & CE itself would show that the temple has been demolished and the land has been included in the lay out by M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Therefore it is clear from the records that the temple is not in existence and was also not in existence at the time of passing the order on 10.10.1966. If the temple was in existence, there would have been a Trustee or a Fit Person appointed by the HR & CE. There is no evidence or document to show that any person was appointed as a Trustee or Fit Person for the alleged temple. No such person was appointed because the temple was not in existence and had already been demolished. Therefore, the reasoning of not serving a notice is the non existence of the temple as found in the order dated 10.10.10.1966 by which patta was ordered for the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also contended that the Inam Appeal filed before the Inams Tribunal is also hit by the principle of res judicata because the same issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.4491 of 2004. In support of his contention he pressed into service the following judgments:- (i) 1999 (3) MLJ 468 (A.Henry and another Vs. St.George Church through its Secretary G. Victor and others) (ii) 2005 (7) SCC 190 (Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another) (iii) 1987 (1) SCC 5 (Sarguja TRansport Service Vs. In support of his contention he pressed into service the following judgments:- (i) 1999 (3) MLJ 468 (A.Henry and another Vs. St.George Church through its Secretary G. Victor and others) (ii) 2005 (7) SCC 190 (Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another) (iii) 1987 (1) SCC 5 (Sarguja TRansport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior, and others) 11. In the first decision cited above this court observed as follows:- "The earlier suit was one for declaration that the resolution of defendant is bad. An injunction was sought for as consequential relief. It is on the basis of declaration present suit is also filed though the relief sought for it is only for injunction. While considering the identity of cause of action, the only fact court will have to see is whether same evidence in both the suits will be sufficient? The evidence that has been adduced will be the same. It is the alleged illegal act of defendant that caused interference to the administration, management and possession of church. Naturally, whether the act of defendant is illegal or not, whether the resolution passed is valid or not will have to be considered and only then whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief could be decided. On going by the averments in the plaint in both the suits, the court finds that the cause of action is the same. The suit has been withdrawn and the plaintiff has endorsed that he is not going to file a separate suit and he also does not want leave for filing separate suit on the same cause of action. Further endorsement is that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the withdrawal of the earlier suit is not pressed will bar entertaining the present suit. The contention that plaintiff should not be permitted to institute such a suit even in a court of proper jurisdiction has to be accepted." 12. In the second decision cited by the learned counsel their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:- "The principle of res judicata is a species of the principle of estoppel. when a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality, the principle of res judicata shall fully apply. In the second decision cited by the learned counsel their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:- "The principle of res judicata is a species of the principle of estoppel. when a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality, the principle of res judicata shall fully apply. Cause of action estoppel arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in the earlier proceedings, the latter having been litigated between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter. I such a case, the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided unless fraud or collusion is alleged, such as to justify setting aside the earlier judgment. Issue estoppel may arise where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant, one of the parties seeks to reopen that issue. Here also, the bar is complete to relitigation but its operation can be thwarted under certain circumstances. The underlying principles upon which estoppel is based, public policy and justice have greater force in cause of action estoppel, the subject matter of the two proceedings being identical, than they do in issue estopel, where the subject matter is different. Once it is accepted that different considerations apply to issue estoppel, it is hard to perceive any logical distinction between a point which was previously raised and decided and one which might have been but was not". 13. In the last decision relied upon by the counsel for the revision petitioner, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:- "Where a petitioner withdraws a petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226/227 without permission to institute a fresh petition, remedy under Article 226/227 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition and it would not be open to him to file a fresh petition in the High Court under the same article, though other remedies like suit or with petition before Supreme Court under Article 32 would remain open to him. The principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the CPC should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also. (The above principle laid down in Darayao V. State of UP ( AIR 1961 SC 1457 has been distinguished) The principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the court to file fresh suit. Invito Beneficium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason, the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in Rule 1(3) of Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit or an issue is involved. The applicability of the above principle of Rule 1 of Order 23 CPC to writ petitions under Article 226/27 is thus not on the ground of res judicata but on ground of public policy. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics. In any even there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 once again. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics. In any even there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 once again. However, the principle regarding bar to fresh petition under Article 226/227 stated above would not be applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 221 since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. However, this question is left open. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. Even on merits there was no ground to reverse the decision of the High Court." 14. The above three decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner squarely apply to the facts of this case also. Because, the order of this court in W.P.No:4491 of 2004 is a speaking order decided on merits and not on technical grounds and the hopeless delay has been highlighted in the said order and after filing a Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, without getting the leave to file a fresh petition before the appropriate forum, the petitioner has withdrawn the said writ appeal. Mere withdrawal without leave to file fresh petition is of no consequence, because, by the withdrawal, the order passed in the Writ petition cannot be erased. 15. One of the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent-temple is that a grant (maniam) which was allotted to the temple cannot be sold. A perusal of the sale deed dated 12.12.1929 produced before the Court in favour of the mother of the petitioner would show that she purchased the lands allotted in grant also. In the sale deed it is described that "moapy; fz;l brl;a{ypy; tpthpj;jpUf;Fk; e";ir g[";ir fpuhk ej;jk; nrhp ej;jk; ,dhk; khdpak; fl;Lf;nfhg;g[ Xl;LtPL fpzW Fothp ghj;jpaijfisa[k;..@ This shows the Inam lands which were also mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed were purchased by the mother of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. In the sale deed it is described that "moapy; fz;l brl;a{ypy; tpthpj;jpUf;Fk; e";ir g[";ir fpuhk ej;jk; nrhp ej;jk; ,dhk; khdpak; fl;Lf;nfhg;g[ Xl;LtPL fpzW Fothp ghj;jpaijfisa[k;..@ This shows the Inam lands which were also mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed were purchased by the mother of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It is true that the lands were given in grant (maniam) for the maintenance and conducting Poojas of the erstwhile temple. But when the temple itself is not in existence even long before 10.10.1966 as found by the Assistant Settlement Officer, the very purpose for which the lands were given has become infructuous. 16. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would contend that he stands by the order of the Commissioner of HR & CE., dated 3.2.2003 and thus he indirectly concedes that the temple which was not in existence has already been demolished. There is no legal bar for a pattadar who is issued with the patta to sell the land covered under the patta. When the Commissioner of HR & CE in his letter dated 3.2.2003 has admitted that the temple has been demolished, unfortunately, the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE, by order dated 15.9.2003 has appointed the first respondent as the Fit Person for the non existent temple. Had the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE knowledge that the temple is not in existence he would not have appointed the first respondent as the Fit Person for the non existent temple. 17. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned proceedings had been initiated suppressing the fact that an extent of 1 acre 10 cents in Survey No.227/3 had been sold to the Government of India as far back as 1972, where the Central Government Public Works Quarters had been constructed. The said sale would only show that neither the HR & CE Department nor the Fit Person has objected to the sale of the alleged inam land. Though the first respondent-temple knows that the property has been sold to M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt., Ltd., the said firm is not made as a party. Even after notice by M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt., Ltd., to all the concerned officials on 5.2.2003, they were not made as a party, but the appeal is preferred only against the vendees. Even after notice by M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt., Ltd., to all the concerned officials on 5.2.2003, they were not made as a party, but the appeal is preferred only against the vendees. As far as the 4th respondent is concerned, it is alleged that he has died 4 years ago and the appeal against him already abated. From the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, it will be seen that the patta was issued to the petitioner and the 4th respondent after due enquiry and after publication. The petitioner and the 4th respondent have also paid the consideration for the issue of patta as seen from the order dated 16.6.1969. The consideration passed by that time was Rs.469.20 for S.No.230/2 and Rs.520.60 for S.No.227/3. 18. Admittedly, under the provisions of the Act, there are two modes contemplated for the purpose of issuing such a patta, which are as follows:- (i) The claimants should prove that they are in possession of the land for continuous period of 60 years, immediately before the 1st day of April 1960; or (ii) If they are in possession for the continuous period of 12 years, immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960, they shall be entitled to a Ryotwari patta, if they pay a consideration the Government in such manner or in such installments, as may be prescribed, an amount twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such lands determined in accordance with he provisions contained in the Schedule of the Act and the Land Revenue due on such lands. 19. In the present case on hand, since according to the Assistant Settlement Officer there was proof of possession only from 1929, onwards, the Assistant Settlement Officer directed payment of consideration as mentioned above and allowed grant of patta upon such payments. The petitioner and his brother had accordingly remitted the consideration as determined by the Tahsildar as referred to obtained patta in their names. The patta was issued as contemplated under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act. The petitioner and his brother had accordingly remitted the consideration as determined by the Tahsildar as referred to obtained patta in their names. The patta was issued as contemplated under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act. They had been in possession and enjoyment ever since and had also conveyed the said lands in favour of a company known as M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potters (Madras) Pvt.,Ltd., In the above circumstances, this court holds that the Inam Appeal pending on the file of the Inams Tribunal (II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) is barred by limitation, besides hit by the principle of res judicata also. Therefore, the said CMA.(Inam Appeal) No:112 of 2005 is rejected as not maintainable. 20. In the result, the CRP is allowed. Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.