Cultivation for 12 years cannot be assumed on oral evidence.

Raju, J.

The appellants who claimed to have been in possession and doing cultivation of the lands in question were able to get patta before the Settlement Officer, Branch Settlement Officer, Madurai-2, but lost before the tribunal below have filed the appeal under Sec.30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

2. The lands in question are indisputably Minor Inam lands and the Inam in question comprised of both warams in favour of the respondent temple. The appellants even on an earlier occasion were granted patta under Sec.9(l)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 by the original authority on the basis that the temple in respect of which the Inam grant was made ceased to exist several decades ago and no one could be granted patta under Sec.9, since there was no alienation of the lands to the ryots by the institution or any one representing the institution as such. On that view and on the assumption that the appellants have been enjoying the lands in question for a continuous period of more then 12 years immediately prior to 4. 1960, patta was granted. Aggrieved, the respondent temple filed an appeal before the tribunal below and in R.A. No.12 of 1976, the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivaganga by its order dated 26. 1976 set aside the order of the original authority on the ground that no notice was issued to the temple and the notice issued on the H.R. & C.E. Department was not proper and sufficient. The matter has bene remitted for fresh consideration. Thereupon the original authority took up the enquiry and by his proceedings dated 22. 1979 again granted patta in favour of the appellants under Sec.9(l)(i) of the Act. The grant was again made on the very same reasons which weighed with the original authority who granted patta on the earlier occasion in favour of the Appellants. The respondent temple pursued the matter on appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivaganga in R.A. No.26 of 1979, The learned Tribunal by it’s order dated 210. 1982 allowed the appeal and sustained the claim of the temple for patta under Sec.B(2) (ii). In coming to such conclusion, reliance was also placed by the Tribunal below on the decision reported in Kariavaradaraja Perumal Temple, Pollachi v. K.S.J. Raju Chettiar, 91 L. W. 142. On the view taken as above, there was no occasion for countenancing of the claim of the appellants under Sec.9 of the Act. Hence the above appeal.

.3. Mrs.Bhagyalakshmi, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that in the teeth of the finding that the temple is not in existence by the Settlement Tahsildar, the order granting patta under Sec.9(l)(i) in favour of the appellants cannot be said to be vitiated and the tribunal below committed an error in interfering with the patta granted in favour of the appellants notwithstanding the fact that they have proved their actual possession and cultivation the lands of for over a period of 12 years prior to 4. 1960.

4. Mr.D.M. Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent, while adopting the reasons, assigned by the tribunal below, contended that the order of the tribunal is quite in accordance, with law and does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The original authority viz., the Settlement Tahsildar himself has not countenanced the claim the appellants on the basis of Kudivaram rights claimed to have been acquired by them. In spite of the above rejection of the claim of the appellants under Sec.8, having regard to the view taken by the original authority that the temple is not in existence and therefore the temple is not also entitled to patta, the original authority came to apply the provisions of Sec.9 treating the lands as having vested with the State and directed the grant of patta on the basis of personal cultivation of the lands for a continuous perio