S MARIYAMMAL Vs. AITHYANATHASWAMI KOIL DEVASTHANAM MADARVIAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Tribunal Appeal has been filed against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai, dated 18.7.1996 in C.M.A. No. 4 of 1983 which confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 27.3.1983 passed in S.R.20/CU/Srivalli/68-R.A.126 of 1974.

(2.) THE land in question is situated in Padikasu Vatanpatti Village, Srivilliputhur taluk of Ramanathapuram District. It was covered by the title deed No. 503 lying in S. No. 78/2 covering a total extent 17.225 Hectors, of which, the claim is in respect of Ac.1.48 cents. THE original claimant was one Late Sorimuthu Naidu and the present appellants are the legal heirs (wife and daughters) of the said Sorimuthu Naidu. THE said Sorimuthu Naidu was examined as P.W.1, before the settlement officer. According to him, he purchased the land in question from one Subramaniya Pattar in the year 1949, that the father of Subramaniya Pattar by name Vidyanatha Pattar launched a suit against Nachiyar Kovil Madavaar Valagam Devasthanam, the respondent herein in O.S.nO.932 of 1920, that in the said suit, a compromise decree came to be made in and by which. A" Schedule property comprised in the compromise decree was allotted to the respondent temple and B" schedule property fell to the share to the said Vidyanatha Pattar. THE compromise decree made in O.S. 932 of 1920 was filed as Ex.P1. It was further contended that right from the days of Vidyanatha Pattar for nearly 100 years, the lands were in the enjoyment of the applicant and his predecessors in title, that Gazette Notification dated 2.6.1971 revealed that the title deed No. 503 was a personal inam, and that the sale deed, by which applicant purchased the land from Subramaniya Pattar in 1949 was Ex.P4. It was claimed by the applicant that pursuant to the patta granted by the Devasthanam in the year 1933 to the Battars, the predecessor in title of the lands in question did have Kudivaram right, that the applicant improved the lands by digging a well and by putting up a pump sets for which he spent nearly Rs. 5,000. It was therefore claimed that the applicant was entitled for a patta under Section 8(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963.