Rajagopalan, J.—In each of these cases the village which was admittedly an inam estate, was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Abolition Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948). An advance compensation for each such estate was deposited with the Tribunal. It was common ground that in each case the grant of the inam was to provide for the performance of specified services in the Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar temple, Madurai, in one set of cases, and in the Kallalagar temple, in the other set of cases. The concerned Devasthanam claimed in each case that the entire amount of the advance compensation should be paid to it. The service-holders, who are the respondents before us on the other hand claimed that the amounts were payable to them as they alone were the principal landholders of the respective estates within the meaning of section 2 (12) of Act (XXVI of 1948). That the service-holders were in exclusive possession of their respective estates till they vested in the Government on the notified dates under section 3 of the Act was not in dispute. The Tribunal by a majority upheld the claim of the service-holders and dismissed the claims preferred by the Devasthanam under section 42 of the Act. Against these dismissals the Devasthanams appealed. Though in the case of each of those estates the claims preferred by the service holders, also under section 42 of the Act were disposed of along with the applications preferred by the Devasthanams, no separate appeals were preferred against the orders in the corresponding Original Petitions filed by the service-holders, which the Tribunal allowed.

We set out below some of the details with reference to each of these appeals.

Appeals preferred by the Kallalagar Devasthanam.

S.T.A. O.P. Name of the Inam Estate. Amount deposited as

advance compensation.

Rs.

17/53 854/52 Vadugupatti 12,348

28/53 861/52 Vayalur 5,520

39/53 864/52 Vittankulam 11,517

40/53 865/52 Sembakulam 4,177

41/53 862/52 Vellakumal 2,354

42/53 859/52 Pannaikudi 10,572

43/53 858/52 Vavidamaruthur 8,567

12/54 860/52 Mettupatti 10,184

16/54 873/52 Unukal Puliyankulam 4,848

1/54 872/52 Pilliarnatham 4,123

25/54 853/52 Ovalur 2,512

Since the questions that arise for determination in these appeals are identical, we can dispose of the appeals by a common judgment. Before the Tribunal the claims preferred by the Devasthanams and by the service-holders with reference to each inam estate were disposed of by a separate order, but on reasoning and conclusions couched virtually in identical language in all these orders.

Admittedly each of the villages had been granted in inam, and that grant was subsequently confirmed by the British. The determination of the questions, who was the grantee of the inam, and what were the terms of the grant, has to furnish the basis for the decision of the question, who held the estate immediately before it vested in the Government. The original deeds of grants themselves were not available. But extracts from the Inam Fair Register were filed, and in some cases, where they are available, title deeds issued by the Inam Commissioner were also filed.

That the grant in each case was for the performance of the service specified in the temple in question was never in dispute. In the case of none of the estates did the Devasthanam claim either before the Tribunal or even in the memorandum of appeal that the original grant had been to the Devasthanam itself. The alternatives to be considered therefore were, was it a service inam, in the sense that the inam constituted the emoluments of the office, or was it a personal grant with an obligation to render the specified services?

That these were the three categories into which the Devadayam grants normally fell was restated by Satyanarayana Rao, J., in Narayana v. Lakshmaiya1:

“As pointed out by Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Sami Ayyangar v. Venkataramana2, grants of this description may be of three classes. The grant may be to an institution, such as a temple or a mutt,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document