IDOL OF SRI RANGANATHASWARMY DEVASTHANAM SRIRANGAM Vs. MAVADIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant which is the Idol of Sri. Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam, represented by its Executive Officer, claims patta under section 5 (2) (ii) of Act XXX of 1963. THE respondents numbering six claim patta under section 8 (i) of the said Act. Respondents are represented by Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel. THE lands involved in this case are situated in Easamakorai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District THEy measure 2 88 acres in survey field S. No. 74/1971 and 1.16 acres in survey field S.No. 74/2. Even though the respondents claim patta under section 8(1), during enquiry by the Settlement Tasildar, they contended that the land has been lawfully transferred in their favour and as such they are entitled to patta under section 8 (2) (ii). THE Settlement Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli granted patta to the respondents herein under section 8 (2) (i) (b). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred C. M. A, No. 48 of 1975 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal. Tiruchirapalli, while the respondents herein independently [referred appeals in C. M. A. No. 117 to 121 and 131 of 1975, contending that the patta ought to have been issued under section 8 (1) of the Act and not under section 8 (2) (i) (b). THE Tribunal dismissed all the appeals confirming the grant of patta by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of the respondent under section 8 (2) (i)(b). As against this order of the Tribunal, the appellant alone has preferred the above appeal.

(2.) MR. M. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant, after reading section 8 of the Act submitted that there is absolutely no proof of the lawful transfer of the land in favour of the respondents herein by the temple and as such the respondents are not entitled to patta. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant should be granted patta uuder section 8 (2) (ii) of Act XXX of 1963. MR. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents finding the difficulty to sustain the the grant of patta under section 8 (2) (i) (b) submitted that patta must be granted to the respondents herein under section 8 (1) inasmuch as the respondents have (sic) perfected their kudivaram right even before the appointed day.

(3.) A reading of the Inam Fair Register and the other relevant documents cleary establish that the grant is in favour of the temple. Section 44 makes it clear that such a grant has to be pesumed as iruvaram grant. Since both counsel appearing for the respective parties in this case have accepted that the gtant is in favour of the temple and such a grant is of both the warams, they have not adverted to this aspect in detail even though there is enough evidence to establish this fact