Judgment

S. R. DAS J.- This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain immovable properties measuring about 93 acres and 33 cents which are more fully and particularly set out and described in Schedule A to the plaint. That suit was instituted by Konduru Venkatapayya, respondent No.1. in his capacity as the Executive Officer appointed by the Government on 15-7-1942 in respect of Sri Somasekhraswami Temple at Kotipalle, hamlet of Donepudi a temple notified on 26-10-1939 under the provisions of Chap. VIA of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 196 (Act 2 of 1927). The suit was instituted in forma pauperis. The claim for ejectment of the defendants was founded on the allegation that the properties belonged to the temple, having been given to it by an Inam grant made in 1770 A.D. by Janganna Rao, the then Zamindar of Rachur, that defendants 1 to 16 and their predecessors were Archakas rendering Nitya Naivedya Deeparadhana services and as such were in possession of the properties for and on behalf of the temple and that defendants 17 to 43 were the lessees under the Archakas and that the defendants 1 to 16 were wrongfully claiming the properties as their own and the other defendants claimed to be in possession of portions of the properties as their lessees. The plaintiff instituted this suit after having given registered notice to the defendants to make over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff as the Executive Officer of the temple but the defendants were still continuing in such possession in spite of such notice. The defendants filed written statements raiding various contentions and issues to which it is not necessary now to refer. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated 31-7-1945 decreed the plaintiff s suit, some of the defendants preferred an appeal to the High Court but the High Court dismissed the same. Those defendants obtained leave of the High Court to appeal to the Federal Court and that appeal has now come-up for hearing before us.

2. The only two points which were raised before us, as before the High Court, are (I) whether the Inam grant was made in favour of the temple or whether the grant was made in favour of the Archakas burdened with the duties of service, and (2) what right did the grant confer on the grantee-whether it was a grant of the land itself or only of the melvaram interest in the properties.

3. Re. 1.-It is urged by the learned Attorney-General that as the defendants and their predecessors have been in possession of the properties from ancient times it should be presumed that their possession originated in some lawful title conferred on them. In short, the contention, founded on several judicial decisions, is that the principle of a lost grant should be applied in this case in favour of the Archakas who have been in quiet possession for over a century and a half. There is no doubt, on the authorities, that a presumption of an origin in some lawful title may in certain circumstances be made to support possessory rights long and quietly enjoyed where no actual proof of title is forthcoming but it is equally well established that that presumption cannot be made where there is sufficient evidence and convincing proof of the nature of the grant and the persons to whom it was made. It is true that the original grant is not forthcoming but turning to the evidence we find two documents which appear to us to be decisive on the question of title. The first one is Ex. P/3, a copy of the relevant entries in the Inam Register of 1860. This Inam Register was prepared after enquiries made by the Inam Deputy Collector and the statements furnished at that time by the then Archakas were taken into consideration for preparing the register. The copy of the statement filed by the then Archakas before the Inam Deputy Collector was exhibited in this case as Ex. D/3. In the Inam Register (Ex. P/3) under the several columns grouped under the general heading "Class, extent and