The presumption under S. 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) that an inam consisted of both Melvaram and Kudivaram was not rebutted by the appellant.

MISHRA, J.

1. One of the respondents who was benefited by a suo motu enquiry by the settlement Tahsildar III (SE), Tiruchirapalli dated 27.8.1969 and who, according to the Tahsildar, was entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), has preferred this appeal against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli under S. 30 (1) of Act 30 of 1963. The Tahsildar initiated suo motu enquiry in respect of certain lands situated in Vellitnirumutham Village within the municipal limits of the town of Srirangam in Tiruchirapalli District. He had directed the said enquiry in respect of the lands that were minor inams granted as Devadayam for the support of the Pagoda of Sri Ranganathaswami at Srirangam and confirmed by the Government in T.D. No. 1027. According to the Tahsildar, these lands were notified under S. 1 (4) of the Act and on the appointed date, that is to say, 15.2.1965, on which date the inam tenure in respect of these lands stood abolished the lands vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. He appeared, however, to take the view that the answer as to who was entitled to a patta depended upon the answer to the question whether the grant in favour of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam was of both Melvaram and Kudivaram or of the Melvaram alone. According to him, the grant to the Devasthanam in T.D. No. 1027 was of the Melvaram only. He found, in particular, that those who were holding or were in possession thereof were the Kudivaramdars and were accordingly entitled to ryoti patta. The appeal on behalf of the Idol was preferred by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam before the Tribunal, which eventually was heard by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, who constituted the tribunal. The Tribunal has found that there is nothing to hold contrary to presumption arising under S. 44 of the Act that an inam consisted of Melvaram only and accordingly found that the Tahsildar has committed error, both of fact and law, in taking the view that the occupiers of the building upon such inam lands were Kudivaramdars. The Tribunal has found that the patta under the Act is granted to the temple under S. 8 (2)(ii) of the Act.

2. Before the Abolition Acts (i) Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (Act

26 of 1963) and (ii) Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (30 of 1963) and some other Acts, inam estates in Tamil Nadu Inams fell into two broad classes, viz., (i) Major inams and (ii) Minor inams, When the grant was of the whole village it was called a major inam. When the grant was not of a village but of isolated fields or blocks of land in a village or share or shares in a v illage, that is a grant of something less than a village, it was known as a minor inam. The word “inam” by itself is an Arabic word introduced in India after the Muhammadan conquest, the term used before that being “Manyam”. The two expressions commonly used in regard to land tenures in the State of Madras (Now Tamil Nadu) were Melvaram and Kudivaram. Without going into the history and origin of inam tenures to understand the meaning of the two expressions, we may refer to a Bench decision of this court in M.K. Subbachariar and others v. State of Madras by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others , 80 L.W. 184 = 1967 I MLJ 206, wherein it has been pointed out that the essence of an inam is that there should be a grant or gift, a favour by the grantor of land of Melvaram also, or gift or giving up of Melvaram in favour of the holder of the land, that is the Kudivaramdar, or it may be an assignment of melvaram to a person not in occupation of the land. The grant or assignment of Melvaram may be the entirely of Melvaram or a share of fraction therein. In order to constitute a grant an inam, the mere use of the expression “inam” or “gift” is wholly inconclusive unless along with that expressi