DAYALAN Vs. KADESWARASWAMI TEMPLE AT KADAIYUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants for patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conservation into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963), (Herein after referred to as the Act), have filed this S.T.A.No. 4 of 1985 against the impugned order dated 22.3.1983 of the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal in C.M.A No. 61 of 1981, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the same claimants against the order of the settlement Tahsildar dated 28.8.1970, which granted the said patta in favour of the temple in question.

(2.) AS per the extract taken frorn the Inam Fair Registrar, as found in the relevant file, the grant is a -Devadayam - grant for preparing the accounts of the pagoda and for managing the affairs of the pagoda (Kadeswaraswami at Kadaiyur). Another passage therein also says that the grant is permanent so long as it is continued. From yet another passage therein, it appears that it is granted to Kangayam Maniyam Kanakku Anandaram. It appears that this is referred to in column 16 of the Fair Inam Register. Then, column 21 appears to run as follows: "To be confirmed to the party in Col. 16 so long as he continues the performance of the service." From these passages, the contention of the appellants is that originally the grant was in favour of an individual, namely, the abovesaid Anandaram for himself performing services to the temple, namely, for preparing the accounts of the temple and for managing the affairs of the above said temple. The further plea of the appellants is that under Ex.A -1 dated 13.6.1876, the said Anandaram had perpetually leased out the land in question to one Swamy Gounder who came to enjoy the said land from the said date. The further plea is that under the subsequent partition deed dated 18.5.1920 under Ex.A -4, the said land was allotted to one Muthusamy Gounder, who is the maternal grand father of the appellants. The further plea is that the said Muthusamy Gounder settled the said lease hold interest under Ex.A -5 dated 2.12.1959 to Visalatchi, the mother of the appellants. The further plea is that on the death of the said Visalatchi on 10.7.1966, the appellants, as her children, came to be in possession of the land in question and continued to have the said perpetual lease - hold interest.

(3.) IN other words, what we gather from the said argument is, even assuming that the grant was in favour of an individual, namely, the above said Anandaram, it was "iruvaram minor inam grant for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or...or service connected therewith .." spoken to in Sec.8(2) of the Act. So, it is clear that Sec.8(2) of the Act is attracted in the present case. When Sec.8(2) is attracted, patta can be granted either under clause (i) or clause (ii) thereof, As per clause (i) of Sec.8(2).