Gokulaknshnan, J - (1.)THE appellant which is the Idol of Sri. Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam, represented by its Executive Officer, claims patta under section 5 (2) (ii) of Act XXX of 1963. THE respondents numbering six claim patta under section 8 (i) of the said Act. Respondents are represented by Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel. THE lands involved in this case are situated in Easamakorai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District THEy measure 2 88 acres in survey field S. No. 74/1971 and 1.16 acres in survey field S.No. 74/2. Even though the respondents claim patta under section 8(1), during enquiry by the Settlement Tasildar, they contended that the land has been lawfully transferred in their favour and as such they are entitled to patta under section 8 (2) (ii). THE Settlement Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli granted patta to the respondents herein under section 8 (2) (i) (b). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred C. M. A, No. 48 of 1975 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal. Tiruchirapalli, while the respondents herein independently [referred appeals in C. M. A. No. 117 to 121 and 131 of 1975, contending that the patta ought to have been issued under section 8 (1) of the Act and not under section 8 (2) (i) (b). THE Tribunal dismissed all the appeals confirming the grant of patta by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of the respondent under section 8 (2) (i)(b). As against this order of the Tribunal, the appellant alone has preferred the above appeal.
(2.)MR. M. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant, after reading section 8 of the Act submitted that there is absolutely no proof of the lawful transfer of the land in favour of the respondents herein by the temple and as such the respondents are not entitled to patta. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant should be granted patta uuder section 8 (2) (ii) of Act XXX of 1963. MR. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents finding the difficulty to sustain the the grant of patta under section 8 (2) (i) (b) submitted that patta must be granted to the respondents herein under section 8 (1) inasmuch as the respondents have (sic) perfected their kudivaram right even before the appointed day.
We have been taken through the orders of the authorities below and also the evidence on record. The Inams Abolition Tribunal, for coming to the conclusion that the lands have been lawfully transferred in favour of the respondents observed

"At first blush, it appears to have some force, but when probed it is possible to conclude that at some distant past the temple itself might have parted with the kudivaram by way of sale".
We are unable to understand as to on what basis the Tribunal has come to such a conclusion. To entitle a person to have patta under section 8 (2) (i) (b), it has to be proved that the transfer was on behalf of the institution and that the transferee is in possession of the lands in question for a continuous period of 12 years immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960. There is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the transfers in favour of the respondents were by the institution or by those who were lawfully entitled to transfer on behalf of the institution. In the absence of such a positive proof the Tribunal has committed a gross mistake in presuming that the transfer of kudiwaram was by the temple itself. Apart from the fact that both warams ought to have been transferred, the presumption made by the Tribunal cannot be supported by any evidence on record. Hence, it is clear that the ingredients necessary to grant patta under section 8 (2) (i) (b) have not been proved in this case and as such the grant of patta under that provision of law is not sustainable.
(3.)A reading of the Inam Fair Register and the other relevant documents cleary establish that the grant is in favour of the temple. Section 44 makes it clear that such a grant has to be pesumed as iruvaram grant. Since both counsel appearing for the respective parties in this case have accepted that the gtant is in favour of the temple and such a grant is of both the warams, they have not adverted to this aspect in detail even though there is enough evidence to establish this fact