The principle of binding court findings on ownership and service tenure applies, affirming prior judgments over claim to enfranchisement.

1. The appellant by name Valambal claimed patta under S.14 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) for an extent of 31 acres 54 cents in survey numbers 116/2,231/4, 149/4 and 97/2 in the village called Pattavaithalai in Tiruchirapalli district. A few facts may be stated to understand the real crux of the matter involved in this case.

2. On 17-1-1948, the Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act (Madras Act 31 of 1947) came into force. Since then the services of Devadasis were never required by the temples. The appellant, claiming that she is the adopted daughter of one Angamuthu who is the last service holder of the Devadasi service, wanted to get the patta in her favour. According to the appellant, her brother by name Palaniandi forcibly took possession of the property from the appellant during 1948. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. 26 of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli to recover possession from her brother Palaniandi. That suit was decreed. Even during the pendency of the said suit, the appellant was in possession of the property as a receiver until the suit was decreed in 1957. In 1959, the respondent - temple made an application to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board under S.87 of Act 19 of 1951 (which section corresponds to S. 101 of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) for the issuance of a certificate enabling the concerned authorities to take possession of the property. That application filed before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments stood transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thanjavur, and was numbered as M.P. 1 of 1960. The Deputy Commissioner granted a certificate as prayed for in favour of the respondent temple. Hence the appellant filed writ petition No. 993 of 1963 in the High Court questioning the grant of certificate in favour of the temple and that writ petition was allowed by quashing the order granting the certificate. The respondent - temple filed O.S. 51 of 1961 in the Subordinate Judge's court, Tiruchirapalli, for getting possession of the suit lands. It also prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,500 towards mesne profits. The said suit was decreed for possession but the mesne profits claimed was not granted, but instead Chathurbagam amounting to Rs. 4875 was granted. Hence the appellant herein filed A.S. No. 37 of 1965 on the file of the High Court. The temple also preferred a memorandum of cross - objections regarding the mesne profits disallowed by the trial court and also regarding the finding that the adoption found in favour of the appellant was not correct. The High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the memorandum of cross - objections in toto.

3. In the patta proceedings, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted patta to the temple under S.9 (1) of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The Assistant Settlement Officer also held that the facts will not attract S.14 of the said Act. Against the order of the Assistant Settlement officer an appeal was filed to the Tribunal and the same was numbered as C.M.A. 324 of 1972. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the Assistant settlement Officer and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal has been filed.

4. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the grant of patta under S.9(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 is not correct because the holding by the temple cannot be characterised as 'private' within the meaning of S.9 (1) of the Act and that the matter comes within the ambit of S.14 of the Act and the appellant is entitled to the grant