Matter to be decided by settlement officer.

V. Ramaswami, J.

1. Ariyakudi, Idaiyaur and Vettiur were three villages forming part of the Sivaganga Zamindari. Sometime after the settlement of the Zamindari in 1801, the Zamindar granted in inam certain lands in these villages as a post-settlement dharmilla inam in favour of one Sadhananda Mudaliar. Though the original grant in favour of Sadhananda Mudaliar is not produced, it is evident from the later records that the entirety of the lands comprised in the grant or a major portion of it, were un-reclaimed waste lands and it was given to the grantee or the purpose of reclamation. The conditions of the cowl are not available, but we can safely presume from the subsequent records that Sadhananda Mudaliar was conferred only a kudiwaram interest, in the lands and the melwaram was still vested with the Zamindar. Subsequently, these three villages were granted to certain brahmins and Ariyakudi Sri Thiruvengada Mudayan Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Devasthanam') the 14th defendant in the suit. These three villages were later notified and taken over under The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), which will hereafter be referred to as the 'Act', as under-tenure estate. The classification of these villages, as an under-tenure estate, was never in dispute. Since we have unimpeachable evidence that there was a grant of kudiwaram in favour of Sadhananda Mudaliar in respect of a portion of these villages, prior to the creation of the undertenure estate, we have necessarily to take it that the grant in favour of the Devasthanam and the brahmins was not of both the warams or at least it did not cover both warams in respect of all the lands the villages. Under Exhibit A-1 dated 5th December, 1874 the Devasthanam purchased the kudiwaram light of Sadhananda Mudaliar from the legal heirs of the said person. It, therefore, follows that in respect of the lands purchased under Exhibit A-1 the Devasthanam had become the owner of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram. The extent mentioned in Exhibit A-1 is 270 kurukkams, which is stated to be approximately equivalent to 150 acres, though the boundaries given are for the entirety of the three villages. Obviously, the description of the boundaries covered a larger extent because what is covered by Exhibit A-1 was only part of the three villages and not the whole of them. The description should be understood therefore as implying that the lands are situated within the major boundaries of villages mentioned in the document. But what is relevant for our purpose is that by virtue of the purchase of the kudiwaram under Exhibit A-1, the Devasthanam had become the owner of both the melwaram and kudiwaram in respect of 270 kurukkams, covered by that document. 2. For laying the Railway track, the Government acquired certain lands in those villages. In the dispute relating to the right of payment of the compensation money, the Land Acquisition Court viz., the Sub-Court at Devakottai in O.P. Nos. 69 and 12 of 1932, 18, 30 to 33 and 35 of 1933 divided the lands acquired for purposes of determining the title in three groups after a discussion of the oral and documentary evidence available in which Exhibit A-1, filed in this case, was also filed as evidence. It was held that the Devathanam was the owner of both melwaram and kudiwaram in respect of the entirety of the lands covered under Exhibit A-1 and that therefore those lands, which are grouped under group numbers 1 and 2, which formed part of the properties covered by Exhbiit A-1, belonged to the Devasthanam absolutely. The Land Acquisition Court also gave a finding that the lands in Group No. 3 though situated in the under-tenure villages of Ariyakudi, Idaiyaur and Vettiyur, are not covered by Exhibit A-1 and that the lands belonged to a group of persons, including Udayars and Vallambars. It appears an appeal was filed against this order, but that was dismissed. Since the dispute did not end even ther