Patta showing interest of claimants not produced.

1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (30 of 1963).

2. The lands in question were granted for the support of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal at Nathakadayar and the grant was permanently confirmed in T.D. No. 2478 so long as the pagoda was well kept up. After the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the Settlement Tahsildar No. IV, Erode, took up enquiry and consideration of claims and by his proceedings dated 9. 1970, passed an order allowing ryotwari patta in favour of the Ist respondent temple. The appellants, who are present enjoyers, aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore (Sub Court) and the Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, remitted the case for fresh enquiry and disposal in the light of the observations contained in its order. It is seen from the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar, Coimbatore, that the scope of enquiry was confined to consider the effect of the documents filed at the appellate stage and to pass appropriate orders. The Settlement Thasildhar appears to have followed the procedure of issuing public notice, as also individual notice to all interested parties, as required under the Rules. Oral evidence was let in by the claimants and after considering the evidence on record, the Settlement Tahsildar, Coimbatore, by his order dated 7. 1973, directed garnet of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands to the appellants in the manner set out in detail in the schedule to the order, specifying the different extents in favour of different claimants. Aggrieved, the 1st respondent temple filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 23 of 1978 before the Minor Inams Tribunal, Erode (Principal Sub Court, Erode). The learned Tribunal, by his order dated 20.4.1983, has set aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar and allowed patta in favour of the temple. In coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kalivaradaraja Perumal Koil, Pollachi v. K.S.J. Raju Chettiar, 1978 (91) L.W. 142. Aggrieved, the party claimants have filed the above appeal.

.3. Mr. S. Gopalaratnam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, placed strong reliance upon a latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sri Vedaranyeswami Devasthanam v. A.C. Dharma Devi, 1996 (7) SCC 467 to contend that the presumption under Section 44 of the Act 30 of 1963 was a rebuttable one, and that being so, the appellants have produced sufficient materials and substantiated their claims that they were always owners of kudivaram and the temple was only holding melvaram interest and consequently the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar and disturbed the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the appellants. The Ist respondent temple, though was served with notice, has not chosen to engage any counsel to contest the claim. Therefore, it becomes necessary to consider the legality and tenability of the submissions on behalf of the appellants and the challenge made to the order of the Tribunal in this appeal.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. In Sri Vedaranyeswami Devasthanam v. A.C. Dharma Devi, 1996 (7) SCC 467, their Lordships of the Apex Court were dealing with the claim of a temple, which was the appellant before the Supreme Court under the very Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, which is under consideration in this appeal. No doubt it was held therein that Section 44, though enacts a presumption that when it relates to the Inam granted for the benefit of the religious, educational or charitable institution or granted to any individual for rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution or for the purpose of rendering any other service, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the Inam consists not