THE TIRUPPARANKUNDRAM SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI KOIL REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. SHEIK MOHAIDEEN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Thirupparankundram, is the Appellant in this case. The dispute is with respect to the grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of a land measuring 1.84 acres in Thirupparankundram village situate in S. No. 217/4. The Appellant contends that the grant is in favour of the temple, this being a Devadayam grant and as such patta has to be granted in favour of the temple. Respondent 1 to 7 claim right under exhibit A -9 and exhibit A -10 being the sale deeds of the year 1962 executed by one Somasundaram Pillai. This Somasundaram Pillai gets the right for 87 1/2 cents under exhibit A -1. The other portion of the property, Somasundaram Pillai gets by way of succession, he being the son of one Thirunavukkarasu. Hence, Respondent 1 to 7 want patta under Sec. 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam. (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The settlement Tahsildar granted patta for this extent of 1 acre 84cents in S.F. No. 217/4 under Sec. 8(1) of the Act. On appeal by the Appellant herein, the Inams Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, confirmed the order of the Settlement Tahsildar by rejecting the claim of the Appellant for grant of patta under Sec. 8(2)(ii) of the Act. It is as against these orders, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Mr. V. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the grant is in favour of the temple and not a personal inam grant burdened with service, and as sue patta has to be granted in favour of the temple. The second contention raised by Mr. V. Srinivasan is that the sales under exhibits A -9 and A -10 in favour of the Respondent being subsequent to 1st April, 1960, the Respondent cannot invoke the provision under Sec. 8(2)(I) for grant of patta. His next contention is that even assuming that this is a personal inam grant burdened with service, the property is inalienable and as such patta cannot be granted in favour of the Respondent, but has to be granted in favour of the temple at least under Sec. 8(2)(ii) of the Act. Mr. V. Srinivasan also contended that the Respondent, being the assignees from Somasundaram Pillai, should prove their possession for the period mentioned in Sec. 8(2)(i)(a) for the period mentioned in Sec. 8(2)(i)(b) to get patta under these provisions of the Act.

(3.) Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, countered all these arguments stating that the Respondents are entitled to get patta in respect of 87 1/2 cents under Sec. 8(2)(i)(b), and for the balance the matter has to be remanded to the file of the Settlement Tahsildar to ascertain the personal cultivation of the Respondent in order to get ryotwari patta under Sec. 9(1)(ii) of the Act.