Person claiming under the inamdar cannot claim better title than inamdar.

P.SHANMUGAM, J.

Defendants are the appellants. The suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties belong to the plaintiffs as service inam lands and for a direction to the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the same was decreed as prayed for by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge and the appeal is against this judgment and decree.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated below. The parties are described as per their rankings before the trial court.

3. The plaint schedule land bearing Survey No.403 of Idaripatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District of an extent of 318.28 acres was granted in inam to the ancestors of the plaintiffs for rendering Pandari service in Sri Kallalagar Temple, Alagarkoil, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. The said inam consists of supplying flowers and garlands of flowers for the worship in Sri Kallalagar Temple. According to the plaintiffs, the land is a minor inam granted for religious service and as such, inalienable and they are still rendering the service in the said temple. While so, it is stated that one of the ancestors of the plaintiffs, Pandari Sundararajayyan, executed a Cowle (Lease) Deed in favour of one Ramasamy Iyer on 24.1.1898 in and by which he stipulated that the lessee should pay the lease amount as mentioned in the said document and that the said lessee shall have no right of alienation of the land etc. The said Ramasamy Iyer released his rights in favour of one Chidambara Iyer. It is stated that there arose a suit between the first plaintiff and the first defendant in O.S. No.49 of 1944 in which a compromise was entered into, whereby it was agreed that the first defendant shall hold the land as permanent lessee and a decree was passed in terms of the said compromise dated 24.11.1944. The said compromise, according to the plaintiffs, is void since the subject matter was an inalienable service inam land. It is stated that on the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act XXX of 1963), the Settlement Tahsildar, Minor Inams, after holding an enquiry under Section 11(2) of the said Act, by an order dated 21.11.1969, granted patta in favour of the plaintiffs under Section 8(2)(ii) read with Section 8(5) of the said Act. The said order of grant of patta was confirmed in C.M.A. No.299 of 1970 dated 11.3.1975. After coming to learn that the first defendant had illegally alienated portions of the said property in favour of defendants 2 to 5, contending that those alienations are unsustainable in law, not binding on any one, void and unjust, the plaintiffs requested for possession of the property and the said request having been denied, the above suit came to be filed.

4. The case of the defendants is one of denial of the nature of the inam. According to them, the property is not an inalienable religious service inam and as per the registered deed of cowle, the defendants have acquired a permanent right of lease. They have pleaded that the first plaintiff herein, as the head of the family and the father of the first defendant, entered into a compromise in the hotly contested suit, O.S. No.49 of 1944, by which the claim of the defendants in the suit as permanent tenant with heritable and transferable rights was recognised. According to the defendants, the compromise was acted upon and therefore, the plaintiffs are now estopped from filing the present suit and the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. According to them, the grant of patta under the Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 was only subject to the right of possession and enjoyment, and the grant of ryotwari patta would not enlarge the rights of the plaintiffs nor it can take away the pre-existing rights of the defendants that had accrued and consequently, the defendants had the right to alienate, and the alienations are valid and binding. For the above reasons, they have sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned Principal Subo