K. VEERASWAMI

1. We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal. It has gone upon the footing that, even though the Kattalaidar had alienated, still he would be entitled to patta under S. 8(2)(ii). That provision, in our opinion, will not apply to a case of an alienee. The policy of the law, as it stood prior to Madras Act 30 of 1963, was that alienations by way of sale would be null and void. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959 and its predecessors provided for resumption and re-grant of such alienated service inam lands. We have got to approach S. 8 in that context. The policy of the law in respect of alienated religious or charitable inam lands is indicated in Sub-S. (2) of S. 8. The alienation should have been made by the inamdar and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving tights through him should have been in exclusive possession for the period provided by Cl. (a) or Cl. (b). These two clauses lead to different results. If possession with the alienee is proved as coming within the ambit of Cl. (b), subject to payment of consideration to the Government as provided by the Section, patta may