Holding

The grant of the service inams was an "iruvaram" inam made in favour of the Devasthanam, and therefore the Devasthanam alone is entitled to the ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(ii).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether ryotwari pattas for service inams in Perur village should be issued to the individual service holders or to the Patteswaraswami Devasthanam, the original grantee of the inam. The Settlement Tehsildar had directed pattas to the service holders under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Madras Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, which the Tribunal upheld, classifying the grants as personal to the service holders (Class III). The Madras High Court set aside the Tribunal, holding that the Devasthanam was the true inamdar and thus entitled to the pattas, a view the appellants challenged. The Court analyzed the nature of the grant, the evidentiary value of the Inam Fair Register, and various historical documents, concluding that the grant was an "iruvaram" inam made in favour of the Devasthanam and not a personal grant to the service holders. Consequently, the service holders could not claim ryotwari pattas, and the High Court’s decision was affirmed. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

The proper interpretation of Section 8(2)(ii) of the Madras Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 with respect to service inams.
Whether the original inam grant was made to the Devasthanam (institution) or to the individual service holders (oozhiamdars).
The evidentiary weight to be given to entries in the Inam Fair Register in the absence of the original title deeds.
The applicability of the statutory presumption under Section 44 of the Act.
The classification of the grant as "iruvaram" (both melvaram and kudivaram) and its impact on the right to ryotwari patta.

Legislation cited

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
Madras Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963s. 21, s. 2(5), s. 44, s. 8(2), s. 8(5)
Madras Transferred Territory (Incorporated and Unincorporated) Devaswoms Act, 1959

Subjects

inamiruvaram grantryotwari pattaservice inamDevasthanamMadras Inams ActInam Fair Registersection 8(2)(ii)land revenuestatutory presumption

Judgment

SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL (DEAD) THROUGH A
MUTHU.SUBRAMANIS GURUKKAL-AND ORS.
v.
PATTESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM PERUR BY ITS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

DECEMBER 8, 1992 B

[S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Madras Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963-
Sections 2(5), 8(2)-'lnam', 'Manyams'-Meaning-lnam- grant-Kinds and C
feature of ·

Madras lnams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1963-Sections 8(2), 21-lrnwaram grant-Whether original inam granted to
devasthanam-Detennination-Absence of original grant deeds-Entries in
Inam Fair Register-Evidential value of D
The Settlement Tehsildar initiated suo motu proceedings under the
provisions of the Madras Minor loams (Abolition and Conversion. into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963 in respect of the issue of ryotwari patta in respect of
service inams in a village.
E
The Tehsildar held the necessary inquiry, directed the grant of
ryotwari pattas with reference to the lands comprised in each inam title
deed under Section 8(2) of the Act by treating the lands as 'lruvaram'
Minor loams granted for the performance of services connected with the
Devasthanam-respondent No. 1.

While directing the pattas be issued to the service holders and such
grant was made subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the
Tehsildar held that Section 8(2) (i) was not applicable as there was no
alienation in respect of the lands.
G
The service holders and the Devasthanam preferred appeals before
the Tribunal questioning the correctness of the orders of the Tehsildar.

Several appeals were preferred before the Tribunal on the identical
issues as to whether it was the Devasthanam or the service holders who
were actually entitled to pattas. H
399
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The Tribunal heard all the cases together and held that the grants
were personal to the service holders and not absolute grants in favour of
the Devasthanam, and that the grantees were the oozhiamdars falling
under the description of -Class III. It further held that only the present
service holder rendering service would be entitled to ryotwari patta if he
was also in possession of the land in respect of the personal service inams
B which were iruwaram grants.

Several Special Tribunal Appeals under Section 30 of the Act were
preferred to the High Court against the judgment of the Tribunal.

C The Division Bench of the High Court, on the question, who was
entitled to the issue of ryotwari patta under Section 8(2) (ii) of the Act, the
appellant or the Devasthanam, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and
allowed the appeal of Devasthanam-respondent No. 1.

The service holders, who were adversely affected by the order of the
D High Court, preferred appeals to this Court.

The appellants submitted that the courts had always taken the view
_that the entries in the loam Fair Register should be given due importance;
that the grant was personal for the person performing the service and it
was not in favour of the Devasthanam; that the Division Bench of the High ,.
E Court chose to rely on Exs.Bl to B.3, which were not in any manner
conclusive; that in the absence of actual cancellation of the title deeds, the
Devasthanam could not claim any right; that this was a case to which a
statutory presumption under Section 44 of the Act would apply; that where
the service holder was already in possessiOn, if the title deed was continued
F to the individuals, certainly the Devasthanam could not claim anything
more than the melvaram right; that no lease deed was executed by the
service holders in favour of the temple; that merely because the Devas-
thanam had a right to supervise that would not confer upon it a right to
the property as such; that having regard to the voluminous documents
including the loam Fair Register which was .prepared at the time of the
G
settlement, being an act of the State, the conclusion arrived at by the High
Court could not be sustained; that in the absence of the original title deeds
the entries in the loam Fair Register should govern.

The respondent-Devasthanam submitted that in this case, as the
H grant was of both the varams, the Devasthanam alone was the inamdar
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR 401

being the owner of iruvaram land and consequently, it would be entitled A
to patta; that the appellants-service holders derived the rights to enjoy the
land under contract with the Devasthanam and they could never be the
original grantees; that they were the assignees of the rights of enjoyment
which was conditional in nature; that so long as they performed the service
they could have a right of enjoyment; that as early as on 16.2.1893 it was
directed that all ti~le deeds of service inams be cancelled and a single title
B
deed be issued in favour of the Devasthanam in confirmation of the
original grant in favour of the deity; that merely because there was no
follow-up action it did not mean that the evidentiary value of Ex.83 was in
any way lessened; that Devadayam was not conclusive, but if the entry in
the Inam Fair Register was read in conjunction with other documents it C
would be clear that the grant was only in favour of the Devasthanam and
that the grant was to the deity.

Dismissing the appeals of the service holders, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The term 'inam' connotes a gift or reward. From ancient D
times grants of land free of revenue payment as well as mere assignments
of the Government's share of produce or revenue called 'Manyams', were
made to individuals or institutions. [410-C]

Lakshmana v. Venkateswarlu, ILR (1950) Mad. 567(PC), referred to.
E
1.2. The inam grants were of varied extents. Sometimes they com-
prised of whole villages; sometimes they were only of parts of villages. Then
again, the inams themselves were of different species. Some comprised
both the kudiwaram as well as the melwaram interest in the land; others
of the melwaram due to the State alone. [410-H]
F
1.3. The distinguishing feature of an inam is that it is always accom:
panied by the grant or remission of revenue either in whole or part of the
revenue. (411-A]

1.4. The minor 'inams came to the abolished by the Madras Minor G
loams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act, 1963. It is an Act to
provide for the acquisition of the rights of inamdars in minor inams in the
State of Madras (presently Tamil Nadu) and the introduction of ryotwari
settlement in such inams. [411-B]

2.1. This is a case in which the grant consist of both the warams. In H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A other words, it is an iruwaram grant. Therefore, it has to be decided
whether the original inam grant was made by the previous sovereigns to
the Devasthanam for its support or to the oozhiamdars on condition of
their rendering service to the Devasthanam. The question could have been
easily answered if the original title deed was forthcoming. But in this case
the origi~al title deed is lost. [413-G]
B
2.2. It cannot be gainsaid that great value must be attached to the
entries contained in the loam Fair Register. The Court cannot solely be
guided by these entries. They must be read in conjunction with the other
documents. Any conclusion arrived at by the loam Commissioner without
C the original title deed cannot change the character of the grant. If a right
has been confirmed on the original grantee the. proceedings of the Inam
Commissioner would have no effect to change its character. [416-E, 422-8]

2.3 .•The entry in column 10 as permanent lends support to the view
that the grant was in favour of the Devasthanam. The entries in columns
D 21 and 22 of the loam Fair Register alone cannot be decisive in the light
of the other valuable evidence. No doubt the service holder was in posses-
sion and the service holders when in possession as derivate holders of the
temple, they cannoi set up an individual title. [423-A-8]

2.4. The various entries in the loam Fair Register taken in conjunc-
E tion with the other documents lead to the conclusion that the grant was in
favour of the Devasthanam; more so, When the title deed issued in favour
of the oozhiamdars themselves referred states 'devadayam'. [422-H]

K Somasundaram and others v. 171e Sta~e of Madras and others, AIR
F 1953 Madras 246, at page 251; Vatticherukku Village Panchayat v. Nori
Venkatarama Deekshithulu and others, [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 228;/ammi Raja
Rao v. Sri Anjaneyaswami Temple Value etc., AIR 1992 SC 1110 at page
1117; M.E. Muthirula Mudaliar v. M. E. Nataraja Mudaliar and others, 87
LW (1974) 643; Shri Va/labharaya Swami Varu (Deity) of Swama, repre-
sented by its Executive Officer v. Deevi Hanuman-charyalu and others, [1979)
G 3 SCC 778; 17ie Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy of Bondilipuram v. 17ie Commis-
sioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, [1962) Supp. 2 SCR
276; Sami Ayyangar and others v. Venkatramana Ayyangar and others, AIR
1934 Mad. 381; 171irulakshmi Ammal v. Ti1e Special Tahsildar for LA.
Neighbourhood Project, Madurai and others, 86 LW (1973) 613; Sri Akkaloi
H Ammani Chatram, Pattukkottai by hereditary Trustee Nugoji Ramachandra
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR [MOHAN, J.) 403

Catike Rao, residing at Big Bazar Street, Pattukkottai v. The State of Tamil A
Nadu by the Collector of Thanjavur having his office at Cutchery Road,
Thanjavur and others, 93 LW (1980) 63; Buddu Satyanarayana and others v.
Kondum Venkatapayya and others, (1953] SCR 1001 =AIR 1953 SC 195;
N_arayanamurthy v. Achayya Sastmlu, 41 MlJ 714; Satyanaraya and others,
! v. Konduru Venkatapayya and others, AIR 1950 Mad. 586, Ayya Nadar v. Sri B
Vaidyanathaswami Koi/ Devasthanam, (1970) II MlJ 129 at page 1~2 and
T. V. V. Narasimham and others v. State of Orissa, (1963) SUPP. 1 SCR 750,
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1995 to
'2021/79. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.78 of the Madras· High
Court in S.T.A. Nos. 145-149/74, 152-155/74, 160, 162-165174, 167-168/74,
170-171/74, 150, 214, 217, 220, 221, 271, 272, 276, 278, 279 and 282of1974.

WITH D
Civil Appeal Nos. 1994/79, 1914/82, 1953-59/81 with I.A. Nos 1- 7/91
& 1-8/92

Padmanabhan, A.T.M. Sampath, K. Ram Kumar, Mrs. Anjani
Aiyagari and N. Sridhar for the Appellants. E
K. Parasaran M.N. Krishnamani and K. V. Mohan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

.. MOHAN, J. All these appeals can dealt with under a common
judgment since Civil Appeal Nos. 1995 to '2021 of 1979 and 1953- 59/81 are
directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court dated 13.4.1978 by which the High Court set aside t~e conclusion
F

arrived at by the Tribunal that the appellants, before us, were service
holders and that they would be entitled to ryotwari pattas. It was further G
held that the first respondent Shri Patteswaraswami Devasthanam,
hereinafter referred to as the Devasthanam, alone was the grantee of the
mam.
(
Civil Appeals 1914/82 and 1994/79 are directed against the judgment
of the High Court dated 29.8.1978 which followed the earlier judgment H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A dated 13.4.1978.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Settlement Tehsildar - II, Gobichettipalayam initiated 'suo motu'
proceedings under the provisions of the Madras Minor loams (Abolition
B and Conversion into ~yotwari) Act, 1963 (Act XXX of 1963) hereinafter
referred to as the Act, iii respect of the issue of ryotwari patta in respect 1
of ~ervice inams in Perur village. After holding the necessary inquiry, he
directed the grant of ryotwari pattas with reference to the lands comprised
in each inam title deed under Section 8(2) of the Act by treating the lands
as 'lruwaram' Minor lnams granted for the performance of services con-
c nected with the Devasthanam, first re_spondent herein. He ordered that
pattas be issued to the service holders under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act
holding that Section 8(2)(i) was not applicable as there was no alienation
in respect of these lands. While directing that pattas be issued to the service
holder.s such grant was made subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the
D Act. Thls direction was necessary in view of Section 8(5) of the 1Act.
Aggrieved by these orders both the service holders and the Devasthanam
preferred appeals before the Tribunal questioning the correctness of the
orders of the Settlement Tahsildar. Several appeals were preferred before
the Tribu!lal since the identical issues as to whether it was the Devas-
E thanam or the service holder~ who were actually entitled to pattas arose,
they came to be dealt with under a common judgment.
-
The main points that arose for determination before the Tribunal
were:

F 1) Whether there was an absolute grant to the Devasthanam?

2) Whether the grant was of both the varams or only of melvaram?

3) Whether even if it was an iruvaram grant, the grantee could be
..
deemed to be the 'Oozhimdar'?
G
4) Whether the grant has to be classified as class II namely, an inam
for the service as such or whether it is one coming under the descriptions
of class ill in favour of an individual rendering service to the deity? and

5) Whether it will be sufficient, if the service inam was fo favour of
H the individual for the Oozhiamdars to merely show that they are the

.",
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR [MOHAN, J.] 405

persons in actual possession now of the land rendenng service and there- A
fore entitled to patta or whether it is incumbent on them to further show
that they were hereditarily entitled to the inam land. In the latter case, they
would be obliged to establish the link between them and the original
grantee if the grant was to the individual. As inam, in essence, is the grant
of land revenue, in most cases, if the Kudivaram always vested with the B
person in possession in the village, neither any grant no.r any resumption
would affect the occupancy right In that case, the kudivaram would always
vest with the person in possession, and if the service holder continues to
do the 'Oozhiam' his obligation to do such service would certainly be
distinct from bis right to kudivaram.
c
On an elaborate consideration of these points the Tribunal ultimately
held that the grants were personal to the service holders and not absolute
grants in favour of the Devasthanam. The Tribunal was of the view that the
grantees were the oozhiamdars falling under the description of Class III
and thus it concluded:
D
"It is only the present service-holder rendering service
that would be entitled to ryotwari patta if he is also in
-. possession of the land in respect of these personal service
inams which were iruwaram grants."

Aggrieved by this judgment several Special Tribunal Appeals (STA)
E
under Section 30 of the Act were preferred to the High Court. The Division
Bench posed for its determination the only question as to who was entitled
to the issue of ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act, the appel-
lant or the Devasthanam. After referring to the relevant case law, the High
Court set aside the conclusion of the Tribunal (vide its judgment dated F
... 13.4.1978). It held as under:

"We accordingly set aside the conclusion arrived by the
Tribunal below that the ooziamdars respondents herein
are service-holders and that they would be entitled to
ryotwari patta on proof of their having been in possession G
of the lands. Instead we hold that the Devasthanam would
be entitled to ryotwari patta being the original grantee.
The service holders who still continue to be in possession
of the properties, rendering services to the Devasthanam,
would continue to enjoy the lands in lieu of their H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A remuneration from the Devasthanam, so long as they
continue to do service. The moment they discontinue to
do such services, the devasthanam would be entitled to
take such actions as is open to it under law."

When similar ap}:>eals came before the High Court, following this
B judgment, the High Court by its order dated 29.8.1978 allowed the appeal
of Devasthanam, the first respondent herein. Insofar as the service holders
are adversely affected by the orde~ of the High Court appeals have been
preferred to this Court.

Mr. S. Padmanabhan, the learned counsel for the appellants, ad-
c dressing the leading arguments submits that Section 2(5) of the Act defines
an Inam. That says a grant "confirmed" or "recognised" by the Government.
'Confirmed' means confirmed by the lnam Commissioner. As a matter of
fact, in AIR 1953 Mad 246, K. Somasundaram and others v. The State of
Madras and others, at page 251 there is a judicia.l pronouncement to that
D effect. Therefore, the courts have always taken the view that the entries in
the Inam Fair Register should be given due importance. In [1991] Supp 2
SCC 228, Vatticherukum Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deek-
shithulu and others, it was held that the entries in the Inam Fair Register
are great acts of the State. Those entries coupled with the entries in the
E survey and settlement record could furnish unimpeachable evidence.
Similar view is taken in AIR 1992 SC 1110, Jammi Raja Rao v. Sri
Anjaneyaswami Temple Value etc., at page 1117. Learned Judges of the
High Court have rejected these entries on the ground that the entries made
therein by the Inam Commissioner without going into the original grant
cannot be a decisive one. In this case, the original title deed .is not
F forthcoming. In the absence of it, if the Inam c·o:mmissioner had prepared
the Inam Fair Register, there is no justification to reject those entries. In
..
exactly similar situations the Madras High Court was of the view, having
regard to the importance of the recitals of the Inam Fair Register even
though the original title deed is not produced, recitals could not be
G ignored. This was so i!187 LW (1974) 643, M.E. Muthintla Mudaliar v. M.E. {
Nataraja Mudaliar and others.
'

On an analysis of the entries in the Inam Fair Register it is seen that
column 8 contains the entry:

H "Devadayam granted for the samamdam in the Paroda l
,-.

I
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR [MOHAN,J.] 407

of pattesvar<tswami at Perur and it is continued." A
Column 10 says "permanent so long as it is continued". The question
will be what is the value to be attached to these entries? That can be
gathered from various cases. In [1979} 3 SCC 778, Shri Val/abharaya Swami
Varu (Deity) of Swama, represented by its Executive Officer v. Deevi
Hanumancharyulu and others following an .earlier decision of this Court B
reported in [1962) Supp 2 SCR 276, The Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy of
Bondilipuram v. 17ie Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow-
ments, it was held the word "Devadayam" only denotes the religious char-
acter of the endowment including a service inam attached to a temple. The
same view was taken by the Madras High Court"in AIR 1934 Mad. 381, C
Sarni Ayyangar and others v. Venkatramana Ayyangar and another. There-
fore, that is not in any manner conclusive.

Then comes column 10. In 86 LW (1973) 613, 17tirulakshmi Ammal
v. 17ie Special Tahsildar for LA. Neighbourhood project, Madurai and D
others, the Madras High Court construed a similar entry in column 10
where it was stated as permanent. It was held that" the grant was personal
for the person performing the service and it was not in favour of the
Devasthanam.

The next submission of the learned counsel is that the Division Bench E·
of the Madras High Court chose to rely on Exs.B 1 to B 3. They are not
in any manner conclusive. Even though under Ex.B 3 it was directed that
the title deeds of service inams be cancelled. and a single title deed be
issued, there was no follow- up action as in the case of Shankara Ramanal-
lur village. Ex.B 1 cannot be called a Sanad. Under identical situation the F
Madras High Court in 93 LW (1980) 63, Sri Akkaloi Ammani Chatram,
Pattukkottai by hereditary Trustee Nugoji Ramachandra Catike Rao, residing
at Big Bazar Street, Pattukkottai v. The State of Tamil Nadu by the Collector
of 17ianjavur having his office at Cutcher)' Road 17ianjavur and others, held
construing the relevant documents that it was only a proposal to make a
grant and not the grant by itself. In this case, the grant is personal to the G
Oozhiamdars burdened with service. Therefore, so long as the grantee is
rendering service and is ready to render service the Devasthanam could
merely enforce the terms of the grant. In the absence of actual cancellation
of those title deeds the Devasthanam cannot claim any right. This finding
of the Tribunal was perfectly in order and the High Court was not justified H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in interfering with the same.

Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, the learned counsel, supporting Mr. Pad-
manabham urged. that this is a case to which a statutory presumption under
Section 44 of the Act would apply. Further Ex.Bl, Register shows the
names of all Oozhimdars and Varamdars. Besides the land in possession
B of yaramdars are also mentioned. Where the setvice holder was al~eady in
possession, if the title deed was continued to the individuals, certainly the
Devasthanam cannot claim anyghing more than the melvaram right.

No lease deed has been executed by the service holders in favour of
C the temple. Merely because the Devasthanam had a right to supervise that.
. would not confer upon it a right to the property .as such. Thus it is
submitted, having regard to the voluminous documents including the Inam
Fair Register which is prepared at the time of the settlement, being an act
of the State, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court cannot be
D sustained.

Mr. K. Parasaran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
Devasthanam would submit: This is a case in which the grant was of both
the varams. Therefore, the Devasthanam alone is the inamdar being the
owner of iruvaram land. Consequently, it will be entitled to patta. The
.E appellants service holders derived the rights to enjoy the land under
contract with the Devasthanam. They could never be the original grantees.
In other words, they are the assignees of the rights of enjoyment. However,
that was conditional in nature. So long as they performed the service they
could· have a right of enjoyment.
I
F ~-
The absence of original grant would not matter. The nature of the
grant could be deduced from the various other documents. Those docu-
ments in this case are Ex.Bl prepared as early as on 14.7.1802. That is the
Sanad in which the village in question is termed as the Manyam of Devas-
thanam. There was also a grant of title deed to the manager of the
G Devasthanam on 8.1.1864 which was Ex.Cl. That acknowledged the title of
\ Devasthanam. I
l
Then com.es Ex.B2 dated 22.8.1890. That unmistakably mentions (
, 'Sarv1.manyam'. Further mention to the grant of the village Perur was made
H onl{to the temple. ·
'I
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR [MOHAN, I.] 409

Ex.B3 goes a step forward. As early as on 16.2.1893 it was directed A
that all title deeds of service inams be cancelled and a single title deed be
issued in favour of the Devasthanam in confirmation of the original grant
I
in favour of the deity. Merely because there is no follow-up action it does
not mean that the evidentiary value of Ex.B3 is in any way lessened. There
were also court proceedings on these documents by way of Ex.B4 to B25
B
which based their judgments ~m these exhibits. As a matter of fact, the
decision on Ex.B27 was confirmed by the High Court.

It is not the submission of the learned counsel that Devadayam is
conclusive but if the said entry in the Inam Fair Register is read in
conjunction with other documents it will be clear that the grant is only in C
favour of the Devasthanam and that .the grant was ~o the deity Shri
Patteswaraswami.

As a general proposition of law the entries in the Inam Fair Register
have to be given due importance, <(annot be denied. An analysis of the
entries in the relevant Inam Fair Register shows that column 8 describes D
as "Devadayam" and column 10 states "permanent". In the light of these
entries the ratio laid down in 1953 SCR 1001, Buddu Satyanarayana and
others v. Kondum Venkatapayya and others, will have to be applied. Con-
struing the similar entries it was held that the deity was the grantee. The
same principle applies here. E
[1979] 3 sec 778 (supra) has no application to the facts of the case
because in that case under column 10 it was stated as "hereditary" which
is not so in the present case. Equally in 86 LW (1973) 613 (supra) though
column 10 described as permanent, it was supported by the statement
before the Inam Commissioner. In the case on hand the original grant was F
not available. Under those circumstances, as rightly held by the High Court
the entries in the lnam Fair Register need not be accepted on its face value.
This Court has, in fact, held so in [1962) Supp 2 SCR 276 (supra). It may
be that the service holders were in possession for a long time. That by itself
cannot enable them to claim patta because they are lease holders enjoying G
the land in lieu of service. Nor does a statutory presumption arise under
Section 44 of the Act. For all these reasons, it is submitted that no case is
made out for interference.

Having regard to the above submissions the following points arise for
our determination: H
410 SUPREME C~URT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 1) The nature of inam grant;

2) Construction to be placed on the entries in the loam Fair Register;

We will briefly trace the origin and the meaning of loam.

B From ancient times grants of land free of revenue payment as well
as mere assignment of the Government's share of produce or revenue
called 'Manyams', were made to individuals or institutions. The term 'inam'
connotes a gift or reward. Madhavan Nair, J., delivering the judgment in
Lkshmana v. Venkateswarlu ILR (1950) Mad. 567 (PC) expressed its
C meaning thus:

"loam is a well-known word of 'Arabic' origin which means
reward or favour. The word came into use after the
Muhammadan conquest. In ancient days, grants of land,
or revenue, were made by Hindu sovereigns to indiyiduals,
D particular families or communities for various purposes or
to religious institutions for their upkeep. These were
known as 'Manyams'. The practice was continued by the
Muhammadan rules, and later by the East India Company
also, till it was discontinued in the earlier years of the 19th
Century as a result of instructions received from the
E
Directors of the Company. Thenceforward, gifts of land
were granted only in special cases, . the ordinary cases
being provided for by the grant of money pensions." (vide
(1965) 1 MU at page 6)

F In the year 1858 an loam Commission was established to examine the
title of the possessers of the inams and to enfranchise them for a quit rent
in lieu of the Government's right to resume. The loam Commission after
elaborate consideration and investigation of titles, enfranchised and con-
firmed the grants wherever proof was available. It was only thereafter title
G deeds were issued to the holders of the inams.

The inam grants were of varied extents. sometimes they comprised
of whole villages; sometimes they were only of parts of villages. Then again,
the inams themselves were of different species. Some comprised both the
• kudiwaram as well as the melwaram interest in the land; others of the
H melwaram due to the State alone. But the distinguishing feature of an inatn
•
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR [MOHAN, J.] 411

is that it is always accompanied by the grant or remission of revenue either A
in whole or part of the revenue.

The minor inams came to be abolished by the Tamilnadu Act (Act
XXX of 1963. Its long title States that it is an Act to provide for the
acquisition of the rights of inamdars in minor inams in the State of Madras
(presently Tamil Nadu) and the introduction of ryotwari settlement in such B
inams. Under Section 2(5) of the Act 'inam' has been defined thus:

"(5) 'inam' means

(i) a grant of the melvaram in any inam land; or
c
(ii) a grant of both the melvaram and the kudivaram in
any inam land; which grant has been made, confirmed or
recognised by the Goverment;"

When Section 2(5) talks 'confirmed'; obviously it means D
confirmed by the lnam Commissioner as stated in AIR
1953 Mad. 246. K Somasundaram and others v. The State
of Madras and others, At page 251 paragraph 27 it is
stated:

"To come under the definition vis-a-vis the question raised E
in the case, the grant of the village should have been made,
confirmed or recognised by the British Government.
During the rule by Hindu rajahs, they used to make grants
of land either rent~free or on favourable rent for the
support of charitable institutions, for the sustenance of F
Brahmins and for the maintenance of officers etc. This
practice was followed by the Moghul Government. The
British Government also made similar grants but they
were very few and that system was discontinued.· The
British Government found that there were various grants
of inams the original whereof was lost in antiquity and G
made various attempts to investigate their title and sys-
tematise the tenures. Finally, in the year 1858, they ap-
pointed the Madras Inam Commission. The Commissioner
made an elaborate enquiry, formulated rules and to a large
extent investigated the titles and stabilised the tenures. H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The preparation of the inam register was described by the
judicial committee as a great act of State. The investiga-
tion was based upon not only oral evidence but on the
Collectors' records, the standard inam registers and the
accounts of the taluks from the earliest to the most recent
period. The Inam Commissioner after satisfying himself
B about the origin of the tenure .either on the basis of the
original grants or on the ground of long possession, con-
firmed the inam grants and, in some cases, enfranchised
them. It is not necessary to go into details of the inbestiga-
tion or the manner in which the rate of quit rent was
c ascertained and fixed. Suffice to say that the Inam Com-
. missioner after satisfying himself, in accordance with the
rules framed for the purpose, confirmed the grants or
enfranchised them as the case may be, and issued a title
deed to the inamdar, or if they were in the hands of
different persons, different title deeds to them. The word
D
"confirmed" in the sub- section has always been under-
stood to be the confirmation of the grant by the Inam ·
Commissioner."

Section 8 deal~ with the grant of ryotwari pattas. In the instant case
E we are concerned with Section 8(2) which reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anyhing contained in sub-section (1) in
the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1959 (Madras Act 22 of 1959) and in the Madras
Transferred Territory) Incorporated and Unincorporated
Devaswoms Act 1959 (Madras Act 30 of 1959) the follow-
ing provisionS shall apply in the case of lands in an
iruvaram minor inam granted for the support of main-
tenance of a religious institutions for the performance of
a charity or service connected therewith or of any other
G religious charity -

(i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and
the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or
person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive
H possession of such. land -
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PER UR [MOHAN, J.] 413

(a) for continuous period of sixty years immediately before A
.the 1st day of April, 1960, such person shall, with effect
on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari
patta in respect of such land;

(b) for a continuous period of twelve year immediately
before the 1st day of April, 1960, such person shall, with B
effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a
.ryotwari patta if he pays as consideration to the Govern-
ment in such manner and in such number of instalments
as may be prescribed an amount equal to twenty times the
difference between the fair rent in respect of such land c
determind in accordance with the provisions contained in
the Schedule and the land revenue due on such land;

(ii) in the case of any other land, the institution or the
individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from
the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in D
respect of that land.

Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, "land
revenue" means the ryotwari assessment including the
additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-
E
cess."

The question before us is whether in the instant case the grant is in
favour of the institution or the individual rendering service as spoken to
under Section 8(2)(ii).
F
This .is a case in which the grant consist of both the warams. In other
words it is an iruwaram grant. Therefore, it has to be decided whether the
original inam grant was made by the previous sovereigns to the devas-
thanam for its support or to theOozhiamdars.on condition of their render-
ing service to the devasthanam. The question could have been easily G
answered if the original title deed was forthcoming. But unfortunately in
this case the original title deed is lost. It was this which influenced the
Tribunal when it commented upon the non-production of the original citle
deed by the devasthanam and made the Tribunal to draw an adverse
inference. But the High Court took the view that even in the absence of
the original title deeds, the nature of the grant could be decided by looking H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A into the evidence with regard to the terms of the grant itself and the
evidence relating to possession and enjoyment by the service holders. But
such possession and enjoyment would be evidence of grant only in the
absence of any reliable or cogent evidence with regard to the terms of grant
itself. As a matter of fact, in saveral cases even in the absence of original
grant the other evidenc~ was looked into for deciding the nature of grant
B vi de.

47 MU 714, Nanamurthy v. Achayya Sastrnlu, or AIR 1950 Mad.
586, Satyanarayana and others v. Kondurn Venka7ripayya and others, which
was appealed against .to this Court in AIR 1953 SC 195, Satyanarayana and
c others v. Kondurn Venkatapayya and others. While Mr. padmanabhan con-
tends that in the absence of the original title deeds the entries in the Inam
Fair Register must govern, Mr. K. Prasaran in opposition would urge that
such entries ·alone cannot be held to be conclusiv.e because there is more
valuable evidence in this case like Exs.Bl to B3; and the previous proceed-
ings of the courts like Exs.B27, BS to B7 etc. We will examine the correct-
D ness of these arguments before we come to the entries in Inam Fair
Register.

Ex.Bl is dated 14th of July 1802 which is a certified copy of the Sanad
given to Perur Devasthanam. The salient features of Ex.Bl are : (a) it
E indicates that the lands· in Perur village form the 'maniam' of the temple
from a long time; (b) it lists out the oozhiams to which the lands were
assigned; (c) it was stated that as the possession in the land was taken over
by those doing service there nee~ not be further cultivation by the sarkar
kudigal; ( d) it mentions that any alienation will be illegal; ( e) it further
mentions "without any defect in the service, the possession shall be made."
F
This should obviously mean, in our opinion, so long as the service was
rendered the larid will continue to be in possession of those rendering
service; (f) with reference to each oozhiam the word 'isum' is mentioned
which means 'permanent'; (g) should there be any alienation by the par-
ticular service holder the land was liable to be resumed.
G
Though the High Court placed reliance on these ·documents the
Tribunal was of the view that the word Sanad used in these documents
.could convey no legal implication. It was just an order of the Collector or
a circular passed on to the Tahsildar. We do not think this approach of
H the Tribunal is correct since this is only a supporting document on behalf
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR [MOHAN,J.] 415

of the devasthanam to decide the nature of the grant. A
Then we come to Ex.Cl which came to be marked in the High Court
by the consent of-the parties. This is dated 8.1.1864. That clearly spells out
that it was a title deed granted to the manager for the time being of the
pagoda of Shri Patteeswaraswami. It unmistakably says that the Secretary
of the State for India in Council, acknowledges the title deed to a B
Devadayam or P(lgoda loam. The date of original settlement is 8.1.1864
and it was renewed on 22.2.1900.

The next document is Ex.B2 dated 22.8.1890. That says: "The entire
village was Sarvamaniyam to the temple long before the reign of Madura C
Tirumal Naidu Garu". This was continued from time to time. In the year
1799 the British Government granted the village to the temple as inam and
issued a jaripatta to that effect. There is also an endorsement by the loam
Commissioner dated 22.8.1890 that the village of Perur and its hamlet
Mavuthampadi may be treated as an entire inam village. This endorsement
came to be approved by the Government. D

Ex.B3 is a document dated 16.2.1893. The relevant portion is as
follows:

"If the Perur Village had been treated as an Entire loam
Village, at the loam Settlement as it should have been, no E
separate title deeds would have been granted to the
temple servant and now that this initial mistake has been
rectified, it naturally follows that these title deeds, which
' were erroneously issued, should be cancelled, 1ndeed, to
permit the servant of the temple to remain as independent F
inamdars would be to defeat the very object which the
Devasthanam Committee had in view in asking Govern-
ment to declare Perur to be an Entire loam Village. The
temple servants cannot reasonably object ·to the cancel-
ment of their title deeds, for they will still be secure in the
enjoyment of their inams so long as they perform their
G
duties properly".

In our considered view this document is of great significance. The
Tribunal chose to reject this on the ground that there was no follow-up
action as in the case of Sankaramanallur and something was done behind H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the back of the service holders. While doing so the Tribunal erred in not
giving due importance to the legal proceedings wherein also this document
had been relied upon and the judgment had become final. Besides tUe
above documents, there were also court proceedings as ·seen from Ex.B27,
BS to B25 wherein the Devasthanam's title as grantee of iruwaram rights
as against the servants had been upheia. Though Ex.B27 was an enquiry
B under Section .9 of the Madras Estates {Abolition and ·conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948, we should not loose sight of the fact that it is one of
the supporting pieces of the evidence.

A4 is a settlement register relating to the village in question.· The
C entry shows that in respect of the lands owned by Devasthanam the
pattadar is Shri Patteswaraswami. Then the name of the trustee is men-
tioned. Service inams are separately classified. They are shown to be held
· to be tax free or on favourable terms. The name of the individual service
holder is shown as inamdar. This document has influenced the Tribunal to
a great extent which held that the Devasthanam had ·no answer to the
D classification in the settlement register. We are afraid that this line of
reasoning is not corrf<Ct. All these documents must be read as a whole.
Moreso, in the absence of original document of the title. -
With this, we proceed to the entries in the Inam Fair Register. It
E cannot be gainsaid that great value must be attached to the entries con-
tained therein. [1991] Supp. II SCC 228 (supra) observed at page 242 para
13 as under:

''Therefore, the entries in the IFR are great acts of the
State and coupled with the entries in the survey and
F settfoment record furnish unimpeachable evid~nce".

Similarly in AIR 1992 SC 1110, Jammi Raja Rao v. Sri A!'janeyas-
wami Temple Va/u etc., at page 1117 in paragraph 19 it was held:

"We are unable to hold that the High Court was not
G justified in preferring to place reliance on the entries in
· the Inam Register (Exs.B-1,B-2,B-4 and B-5) as compared
to Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 which are documents executed by
the members of the appellant's family and Ex.A-9, the
·register prepared by Turanga Rao, the father of the ap-
H pelJant after his appointment as a trustee under the 1927
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PER UR [MOHAN, J.] 417

Act. Laying stress on the importance of the entries in the A
Inam Registers, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil, in Anmachel/am Chetty v. Venkatachalapathi Gurns-
wamigal (1919) 46 Ind App 204: (AIR 1919 PC 62) has
observed:

'It is true that the making of _this Register as for the B
ultimate purpose of determining whether or not the lands
were tax free. But it rµust not be forgotten that the
preparation of the Inam Register was a great act of State,
and its preparation and contents were the subject of much
consideration under elaborately detailed reports and c
minutes. It is to be remembered that the lnam Commis-
sioners through their officials made inquiry on the spot,
heard evidence and examined documents, and with regard
to each individual property the Government was put in
possession not only of the conclusion come to as to
whether the land was tax free, out of a statement of the
D
history and tenure of the property itself.' (pp.217-218) (of
lA): (at p.65 of AIR).

But at the same time we cannot solely be guided by these entries.
They must be read in conjunction with the other documents. As a matter E
of fact, in [1962) Supp 2 SCR 276 (supra) at page 291 this Court observed
thus:

"The fact that the Inam Commissioner treated the grant
relating to Exhibit P-50 to be in support of Sadavarti and F
for support of the temple of Sri Jagannadhaswami, would
not make the grant for the purposes of the temple when
the was itself not in existence .at the time the grant was
made and when a later sanad referring to it definitely
stated that the original villages were granted for the pur-
G
- poses of charity. The observations of the Privy Council in
Arnnachellam's case, (1919) LR 46 IA 204, that in the
absence of the original grant the Inam Register is of great
evidentiary value, does not mean that the entry or entries in
any pmticular column or columns be accepted at their face
value without giving due consideration to other matters H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A recorded in the entry itself. We have already stated that the
'divine service' referred to in this entry does not refer to
any religious worship but to the prayers to be offered by
the grantee for the preservation of the State." (Emphasis
supplied)
B In the light of these principles we will ·now examine the various
entries in the Inam Fait Register. Column 8 says; "Devadayarn granted for
the samamdarn in Paroda of Pattesvaraswami at Perur and it is continued".
This by itself is no means conclusive or decisive that it was a grant to the
temple or to an office attached to the temple .. In A;ya Nadar v. Sri
c Vaidyanathaswami Koil Devasthanam, 1970 II Madras U 129 @ 132 it was
observed:

"In Subramania v. Kailasanatha, I.L.R. 1955 Mad. 35, it
has been pointed out that the word devadayam is used in
inam registers not only in connection with religious grants
D
strictly .so· called but also where the ultimate purposes are
religious. It is clear from the decision that the test to be
applied in distinguishing a grant to an institution from a
grant to an individual is the intention and that each case
depends upon its myn facts. In Sa11ii Ayyangar v.
E Venkatarammana, A.LR. 1934 Mad. 381, it was held that
devadayam in a grant does not necessarily import that the
grant is made to the temple. It \Vas further held that where
a grant· contains the clause that it is to be confirmed to
party as long as he continues the performance of the
F service. It is a grant to the party burdened with service
and not to the deity even though the word devadayam is
used as the inam register disclosed that the land was
continuously held at least for two generations by the family
of the party. It appears from page 260 of Sundararaja
... Iyengar's Land Tenures that the mere description of an
G inam as devadayam is not conclusive that the grant is in
favour of a religious institution, though it is a strong proof
that the institution is a public ·one."
-
H
The authorities are not wanting in this regard. Again in 1962 Supp 2
SCR 276 (supra) observed at page 289 as under: ·-
S. GURUK.KAL v. P.O. PERUR (MOHAN,J.) 419

"Exhibit P.-53 is the extract from the Register of Inams A
relating to village Ragolu in Chicacole Taluk. It records:
'In the sanad it was mentioned that the inam was given
for the support of fakirs to the original grantee about a
century ago. The other notes in this extract are practically
identical with those in Exhibit P-52. The final order of the
B
Inam Commissioner was also in terms similar, and was
'confirmed to the fakirs the sadavarti charity according to
the grant, free, there being no excess. It is interesting to
note that in column 2 (general class to which inam
belongs) is noted 'Dewadayam', i.e., dedicated to God;
that in column 8 meant for the description of the inam is c
noted: 'for the support of Pagoda of Sri Jagannadhaswa:mi
in Bondilipuram', and that the entry in column 11 indicates
that Anavaruddin Khan Bahadur made the grant in Hijiri
1171 corresponding to 1754-55 A.O. It is clear that the
note about the land being dedicated to God is wrong in
D
view of the definite statement that the Sanad mentioned
that the inam was given for the support of fakirs to the
original grantee (Mandasa Palahari Bairagi in Column 13)
about a century ago and that it was the trustees of the
institution who constructed the temple. When the temple
was constructed by the trustees of the institution, viz., the E
Sadavarti institution, the original grant could not have
been to the temple or to God. The entries in this extract
confirm the construction we have placed on similar entires
in Exhibit P.52 and other extracts indicating the grant to
the temple."
F
As rightly pointed out by the High Court even the title deeds issued
in favour of the service holders described the character of the property as
Devadayam; this entry read in the light of the Ex.Bl, the ge,nuinene~ of
which was never challenged, lends great support to the arguments ad-
dressed on behalf of the Devasthanam. This decision has also been refetred G
to in (1979) 3 sec 778 (supra) wherein the following observations are
found:

''Column 1 of the loam Fair Register describes the
class of inam as Devadayam. But as observed in Venkayya H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A v. Sriramamurthy, AIR 1957 AP 53, this description by
itself cannot be determinative of the question since it only
denotes that the endowment is of a religious character
which will include a service inam attached to a temple."

AIR 1934 Mad 381 (supra) observed at page 381 as under:
B
"The use of the word "Devadayam" does ·not necessarily
import that the grant was made to the temple, ... "

Coming to the entries in column 10 the Inam Fair Register states
'permanent so long as it is continued'. The description in col.(10) referring
C to the inam as pe~manent instead of hereditary is more consistent with the
inam, being a serVice inam, rather than a personal grant burdened with
service. Reliance is placed by Mr. Padmanabhan on [1979] 3 SCC 778
(supra) but has to be observed in that case that column 10 of the Register
shows that the grant was hereditary. On the contrary the citation of 1953
D SCR 1001 (supra) relied upon by Mr. K. Parasaran is apt in this case. It
observed at page 1004 as under:

The copy of the statement filed by the then Archakas
before the Inam Deputy Collector was exhibited in this
case as Exhibit D/3. Jn the Inam Register (Ex.P/3) under
E the several columns grouped under the ·general heading
"Class extent and value of Inam" this Inam is classifed in
column 2 as Devadayam. In column 3 are set out the ·'
survey numbers together with the word 'Dry' indicating
the nature of the land comprised within the survey num-
F bers. The area are set out in column 5. The heading of
column 7 is "where no survey has been made and no
assessment fixed by Government, the cess paid by the ryot
to the Inamdar, or the average assessment of similar
Government land should be entered in column (7)".
Under this heading are set out the amounts of respective
G assessments against the three survey numbers totalling Rs.
198-13-9. We then pass on the next group of columns
under the general heading "Description, tenure and docu-
ments in support of the Inam". Under column 8 'descrip-
tion of loam' is entered the remark "For the support of a
H Pagoda. Now kept up". The entry in column 9 shows that
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PER UR [MOHAN, J.] 421

the Inam was free of tax, i.e., Savadumbala. Under column A
10 headed "Hereditary, unconditional for life only or for
two or more lives" is mentioned 'Permanent'. The name
of the grantor as stated in coiumn 11 is Janganna Rao and
the year of grant is fasli 1179, A.O. 1770. In column 13
the name of the temple is set out as the original grantee.
The n~me of the temple and the location of the temple
B
are also set out under columns 16 and 17. Turning now to
the statement Ex.D/3 caused to be written and filed by the
then Archakas during the Inam Inquiry held in 1859-60.
Sree Somasekharaswami Varu is given as the name of the
Inamdar and the present enjoyer. The name of the temple c
is also set out under columns 3,5,6 and 12. Under the
heading "Income derived from the Inam - whether it is
sarvadumbala or jodi. If jodi the amount" in column 13 is
stated "sarvadumbala Inam. Cist according to the rate
prevailing in the neighbouring fields - Rs. 266-3-1." This
D
statement (Ex.D/3) bears the signature of the karnams and
the witnesses. It will be noticed that neither in the Inam
Register Ex.P/3 nor in the statement Ex.0/3 is there any
mention of the Archakas the grantee or for the matter of
that, having any of the latest interest, personal or other-
wise, in the subject-matter of the Inam grant. The two E
exhibits quite clearly indicate that the Inam grant was
made in favour of the temple by the grantor and that in
the face of this definite evidence and proof of the nature
of the grant, no presumption of a lost grant can be made
in favour of the Archakas. We, therefore, in agreement
F
with the High Court, hold that the deity was the grantee
and the first question raised before us must be answered
against the appellants."
Therefore the word 'permanent' signifies the grant in favour of the
temple. An attempt was made by the appellant to distinguish this case G
having regard to the other entries, namely, to be confirmed to the party in
column 16 - permanently so long as he continues the performance of the
service. It is also argued the entry as permanent in column 10 is by no
means decisive and in support of this 86 (1973) LW 613 (supra) is cited.
It must be remembered that in the Madras case, it was supported by the
statement of the lnam Commissioner which is not so in the instant case. H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3S.C.R.

A Therefore any conclusion arrived at by the Inam Commissioner without the·
original title deed cannot change the character of the grant as rightly held
by the High Court. An analysis of the above lead us to the following
Conclusion:
(1) If a right has been confirmed on the original
grantee the proceedings of the Inam Commissioner would
B have no effect to change its character vide [1963) Supp 1
SCR 750, T. V. V. Narasimham and others v. State of Orissa.

(2)(a) Ex.Bl dated 14.7.1802 is for the continuance of
C the Manyam granted to the Devasthanam under jaripatta
~" in respect of the lands in the village in question listing out
the 'oozhiams' for which the land was assigned;

(b) The genuineness of Ex.Bl was not challenged at
any point of time;
D
(c) The appellants sought to rely on this document and
wanted to construe the word isum in their favour; Ex.Bl
lists only the various 'isums' and not 'isumdars'.

(d) Ex. BS to B27 which are court proceedings lend
E credence to Ex. Bl.

(3) Ex. Cl also shows the title to a devadayam or pogada;

(4) Ex. B2 is another valuable document to show the grant
as 'sarvamanyam' to the devasthanam granted by the pre-
F vious sovereigns and confirmed by the British Government
in the year 1799 by issue of a jaripatta;

(5) Ex.B3, though no evidence is produced as to the
follow-up action, being a document of high evidentiary
value, cannot easily be disregarded;
G
(6) The various entries in the Inam Fair Register taken in
conjuction with the other documents lead to the conclusion
that the grant was in favour of the devasthanam; moreso, •
when the title deed issued in favour of the oozhimdars
H themselves referred states 'devadayam';

.
S. GURU.KKAL v. P.D. PER UR [MOHAN,J.] 423

(7) The entry in column 10 as permenant lends support A
to the view that the grant was in favour of the devas-
thanam;

(8) The entries in columns 21 and 22 of the Inam Fair
Register alone cannot be decisive in the light of the other
valuable evidence above referred to. B
(9) No doubt the service holder was in possession and the
service hoders when in possession as derivate holders of
the temple, ,they cannot set up an individual title.

In the result, we fully concur with the findings of the High Court and ·C
dismiss the appeals along with all interlocutory applications. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.

V.P.R. Appeals dimissed.