Execution of usufructuary mortgage by some people dispute Patta granted to temple.

Raju, J.

The above appeal has been posted before us on the directions of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice pursuant to the orders of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India dated 110. 1995 in Civil Appeal No.968 of 1980, since reported in (Sri Varadaraja Perianal Temple v. K.Ramachandra, (1995)4 S.C.C. (Supp.) 87), whereunder while setting aside the earlier order of dismissal of this appeal on the ground of limitation, the Supreme Court has remitted the matter to this Court for redeciding the matter on its own merits.

2. The appellant in the above Special Tribunal Appeal filed under Sec.30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) is the Inamdar Temple, viz., Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple at Anjur Village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District presently in Periyar District. The appeal has been filed against the orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal/ Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode dated 22. 1971 in C.M.A. No.729 of 1969, whereunder the tribunal below has chosen to set aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Erode, and allowed patta in respect of the entire lands in question in favour of respondents 1 and 2 before us, the appellants before the tribunal below.

3. The lands comprised in the schedule to the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Erode, in S.R. No.161/ 69/ M.I.Act/ Erode Taluk, dated 18. 1969 are situated in No.182, Anjur Village and were the subject matter of the grant confirmed in T.D. No.31. The lands are said to be unenfranchised Devadayam Inam granted and confirmed permanently in 1863 for the support of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal situated at Anjur so long as it was well kept. There is no controversy that the temple still exists and is in good condition. The inam tenure of the lands stood abolished consequent upon the Notification issued under the Act and the land stood vested with the State under Sec.3 (b) of the Act for being dealt with under the provisions of the Act.

4. Since there were no claims received for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands, the Settlement, Tahsildar initiated suo motu enquiry under Sec.11 of the Act and caused the publication and service of the required notices in the manner prescribed under the rules. M/s.K.Kasturi Iyer and K.Ramachandra Iyer, both sons of Kuppusamy Iyer of Sivagiri appear to have entered appearance before the Settlement Tahsildar through their Advocate and filed a written statement of claim contending that old paimash Nos.273,11,18,290 and 291 measuring and aggregating to an extent of 28.95 acres correlating to the new S.Nos.148, 277, 281/2 and 409/2 had been granted to their grandfather Subba Iyer in 1863 for the proper upkeep of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal and they have been in the possession and enjoyment as the successors in interest and title to their grandfather Subba Iyer fulfilling the conditions and terms of the original grant. The further contention on their behalf was that subsequent to the original grant in 1863, another extent of 8.45 acres comprising 33. acres in S.No.148, 1.55 acres in S.No.277, 1.32 acres in S.No.281/2 and 2.25 acres in S.No.409/2, was purchased by their forefathers from different parties through oral sales for small consideration over and above the original aggregate extent of 28.95 acres comprised in the title deed and that ryotwari patta in respect of this excess extent of 8.45 acres has at any rate to be allowed in their personal names. Of the claimants K.Ramachandra Iyer appears to have got examined himself as P.W.1 and he admitted that no sale deeds were actually got executed from the transferors and that no other particulars in relation to the names of the transferors, the date or the year in which the oral sale took place, the actual amount of consideration for which the land was purchased and the names, who had actually purchased them were available with them.

.5. The Karnam, who was examined as C.W.I, appears to have f