ORDER

CAs Nos. 33-37 of 1990

1. These appeals arise from the common judgment of the High Court of Madras rendered in STAs Nos. 88-92 of 1979 and 51 of 1981 dated 9-8-1988. The Division Bench upheld the order of the appellate Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, for short "the Act". The appellant-Institution had claimed ryotwari patta under Section 3 of the Act. The Settlement Officer and the Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant had since both melvaram and kudivaram rights, the presumption drawn under Section 44 supports their right. In addition, they also relied upon the entries in Inam Fair Register, for short the IFR, and they disclosed that the grant was in favour of the Institution. The names of the individuals had not been mentioned in the relevant columns and the respondents are not entitled to the ryotwari patta. But on appeal under Section 30, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings and held that Section 44 creates a rebuttable presumption since the evidence placed by the respondents shows that they had kudivaram right in the lands and they were entitled to the ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act. Accordingly, the patta was granted in their favour. As stated earlier when challenged in further appeal to the Special Tribunal, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Settlement Officer and the Appellate Tribunal and granted patta in favour of the respondents. Thus these appeals by special leave.

2. It is contended for the appellant that under Section 8(2) of the Act the respondents would be entitled to a patta only on their showing that the lands had been transferred by way of a sale by the Institution in favour of the individuals under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 8. In case any individual is rendering service then the individual who renders the service or the transferee is entitled to the ryotwari patta in this case. No such plea or the documents have been placed on record to establish the same. Therefore, the Special Tribunal has committed grievous error in reversing the findings of the Settlement Officer and the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly held that the appellant had both melvaram and kudivaram rights. We find no force in the contention. It is true that except in one case, no sale deed was placed on record. But the Special Tribunal had gone into the facts and found that the respondents were having kudivaram right in the lands what the appellant has been collecting was only a kisht that is revenue and that is being payable to the State. It is true that this Court in Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu [1991 Supp (2) SCC 228] held that the entries in the Inam Fair Register are great acts of the State and coupled with the entries in the survey and settlement record furnish unimpeachable evidence. Construction of the relevant entries in the IFR is a question of law. On considering the entries, the Court can come to a conclusion whether the grant made was to the institution or to the individuals or for the maintenance of the Institution as mentioned in the relevant entries in the IFR. In that case on construction of the relevant entries, it was found that the grant was for the preservation and maintenance of the tank and tax-free inam land was granted for that purpose of maintaining the tank. Accordingly, it was held that the named individuals have no individual right except as trustees on behalf of the villagers for the proper maintenance of the tank. It is true that the Inam Fair Register has been placed before us. The relevant entries clearly show that the original grant was made for the maintenance of Vedaranyaswami Devasthanam temples. It was a permanent grant and no name of any individual is found in the relevant columns. It would appear from the record that the temple itself had treated the respondents and their predecessor-in-interest as those who had kudivaram right and the action taken was fo