Judgment

S.MOHAN, J.

(1) ALL these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since Civil Appeal Nos. 1995 to 2021 of 1979 and 1953-59 of 1981 are directed against the judgment of the division bench of the Madras High court dated 13/04/1978 by which the High court set aside the conclusion 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 held that the first respondent Shri Patteswaraswami Devasthanam, hereinafter referred to as the Devasthanam, alone was the grantee of the inam.

(2) CIVIL Appeals No. 1914 of 1982 and No. 1994 of 1979 are directed against the judgment of the High court dated 29/08/1978 which followed the earlier judgment dated 13/04/1978.

(3) 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 Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act XXX of 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the issue of ryotwari patta in respect of service 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 iruvaram minor inams granted for the performance of services connected with the Devasthanam, first respondent 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 holders such grant was made subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. This direction was necessary in view of Section 8(5 of the Act. 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 Tehsildar. Several appeals were preferred before the tribunal since the identical issues as to whether it was the Devasthanam or the service holders who were actually entitled to pattas arose, they came to be dealt with under a common judgment.

(4) THE main points that arose for determination before the tribunal were:

(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 Oozhiamdar?

(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 III in favour of an individual rendering service to the deity? and

(5 Whether it will be sufficient, if the service inam was in favour of the individual, for the Oozhiamdars to merely show that they are the persons in actual possession now of the land rendering service and therefore 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 person in possession in the village, neither any grant nor 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 his right to kudivaram.

(5) 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 fallin