Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. I am clearly of the opinion that Mr. Sankara Ayyars argument cannot prevail. He contends that the grant should be construed as one made to the temple. As I observed in a recent judgment (S.A. No 478 of 1979), there are three possible views that may betaken of grants of this kind: first, that the land was granted to the institution; secondly, that it was intended to be attached to a particular office, and thirdly, that it was granted to a named individual, burdened with service, the person so named, happening to be the officeholder, at the time of the grant. The grant in the present case belongs, in my opinion, to the third category. The inam title deed was issued to the individual named Sivaprakasa Oduvar (the 2nd defendant has been assumed to be his descendent); he is not described as representing the temple. In the title deed it is stated, that he shall hold the inam for the service of the chanting of the hymns and the inam "is confirmed to and your successors * * * so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled". There were two assertions made by Sivaprakasa Oduvar before the Inam Commissioner, which have a direct bearing on the point. H