The decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer which had thus become final under Section 46 operates as res judicata under Section 43 and binding "on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them in any suit or proceeding in a Civil Court, insofar as such matter is in issue between the parties or persons aforesaid in such suit or proceeding".

V. RAMASWAMI, J. :- This is an appeal against, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, on a reference under Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, in L. A. O. P. No. 16 of 1978. Claimants 1 to 6 are the appellants.

2. An extent of 1.78 acres comprised in S. F. No. 88 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a Depot for Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre. There was a reference under Section 18 which was also disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge in L. A. O. P. No. 15 of 1978, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Since there was a dispute relating to the title, the matter was also referred to the learned Subordinate Judge under S.31, Land Acquisition Act.

3. The said S. F. No. 88 measuring 1.78 acres and another extent of 1.96 acres comprised in S. F. No. 735 were the subject-matter of an inam grant. The case of claimants 1 to 6 was that the grant was a personal grant to the Gurukkal of Thiru maleeswarswami Temple at Thirumamilayur, bounded with the condition of services to the temple. They also claimed that they and their predecessors-in-title had been in possession and enjoyment, doing the services in the temple. This inam was notified and taken over as a minor inam under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 30 of 1963). In the suo moto enquiry held by the Settlement Tahsildar III (S. E.) Tiruchirappalli, a ryotwari patta was issued to claimants 1 to 6 under S. 8 (2) of Act 30 of 1963. The Land also stood registered at the time of acquisition in the Permanent Land Register and other records of the Government in the name of claimants 1 to 6. The said claimants further contended that in view of the patta issued under Section 8 (2) (ii) in their favour, it is not open to the Civil Court to go into the question of title afresh and decide whether the grant was in favour of the temple or it is a personal grant burdened with service. They also continued that the temple is estopped by the principle of res judicata from claiming that any portion of the compensation amount is due them in view of the decision of the Settlment Tahsildar, holding that they are entitled to a ryotwari patta and also in view of the prior proceedings in O. P. No. 12 of 1939, O. P. No. 98/42 and O. P. No. 104 of 1942. According to these claimants, the title of the temple had been found against in these proceedings.

4. The seventh claimant, which is the temple, filed a statement claiming that the original grant as evidenced by the Inam Fair Register extract was to the institution and for support of the institution, that the decision of the Settlement Tahsildar that a personal grant burdened with service and that claimants 1 to 6 are entitled to the patta cannot be treated as final and that question of title could be agitated again in Civil Court.

5. The eighth claimant claimed that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the land acquired and entitled to a portion of the compensation. The claim of the eighth claimant was rejected and he had not filed any appeal and therefore his claim may be kept out of consideration.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Inam Fair Register extract showed the grant was for the temple and not a personal grant burdened with service. On that ground he further held that claimants 1 to 6 have no title to the property and that the grant of patta cannot clothe them with any right to claim compensation amount. In that view, the compensation was given to the temple.

7. The Inam Fair Register extract has been marked in this case as Ex. A-3. It may be seen from column 2 that the grant has been classified as "religious" and, in Column 8 relating to the description of the inam it is stated that it is Devadayam granted for the support of the Pagoda of Thimalilaiswara-swami at Tirumanallur and it is well k