A grant of lands by private individuals in lieu of wages for services rendered is not an inam and cannot be resumed by the grantors unless it is shown to be terminable.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. :- Three temples situate in the village of Vangarai in Sirkali Taluk, Tanjore Dt. represented by their trustees instituted a suit which has given rise to this appeal for an injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4, from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit was later converted into one for recovery of possession. The properties which form the subject matter of the suit consist of three items covering in all an extent of two acres. Out of that one acre was claimed by respondents 1 and 2 as pertaining to carpenter manyam and the remaining extent was claimed by respondents 3 and 4 as a grant to the village barber for rendering certain services. It is not disputed that the respective respondents are residing in the village and serving as carpenters and barbers. The properties originally formed part of the village samudayam and it is now found, and that finding has not been challenged before us, that they at an unknown period were given by the villagers to the carpenter and the barber for their services to the village community. Notwithstanding this, patta for the lands continued to remain in the names of the co-sharers. The kist due thereon was also paid by them. Recently, during the year 1955 disputes arose between the co-sharers and respondents 1 to 4 : the former purported to dedicate the property covered by the suit to the village temples, namely, the appellants herein. Patta for the lands was also transferred in the names of the temples. Respondents 1 to 4 who were in possession of the lands apprehending that the crops standing on the lands would be removed by the trustees of the temple filed O. S. 33 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali, for an injunction against the latter restraining them from so doing. That suit was contested. On 29-1-1957 the suit was dismissed, with costs as not having been pressed. It is now pertinent to say that the relief claimed in that suit related only to the single crop standing on the lands and no question of title was involved in the case. Presumably by the time the respondents intimated to the court that they were not pressing their suit the apprehended mischief had ceased to worry the artisans. That must have induced them to withdraw the suit. Shortly after the disposal o£ the suit the appellants instituted the suit that has given rise to this appeal for injunction against respondents 1 to 4 pleading their own title and stating that the respondents were let into possession of the lands by the predecessors-in-title of the co-sharers, landlords only five years previous thereto under a permissive title and that they had surrendered possession in the year 1957 and that therefore they had no further right to disturb the appellants' lawful possession. Respondents 1 to 4 contested this claim pleading that they had been in possession of the properties from the time of their ancestors : they also denied the title of the appellants to the property. The trial court upheld the title of the appellants. It however found that the appellants had no possession of the property and it passed a decree for

possession in their favour. This decree was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam to whose file the appeal had been transferred. Tire appellate court held that there had been no valid or lawful dedication by the co-sharers, landlords of the lands in favour of the appellants and that the lands being manyam given to the contesting respondents as artisan service inams, they could not be evicted from their possession as they had the right to remain on the property so long as they rendered service to the villagers. This view has been accepted on second appeal by Venkataraman, J. But the learned Judge gave a certificate under Cl. 15 Letters Patent for a further appeal. Hence this appeal.

2. Sri T.S. Kuppuswami Iyer, appearing for the appellants, first contended that as the lands were given to the