RAJU, J. - (1.) THE above appeals have been argued together by the learned counsel for the appellants, since they involve identical issues and consequently they are dealt with together.
(2.) S.T.A. No. 13/85 has been filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryatwari) Act, 1963, Tamil Nadu Act 30/63 against the order of the Inams Abolition Tribunal (Sub Court), Cuddalore, dated 30.11.1983 in S.T.A. No. 37/89 where under the Tribunal came to confirm the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, dt. 31.3.1979 granting patta in respect of the lands in question in favour of Sri. Adhikesava Perumal Temple represented by the hereditary trustee for the time being under Section 11(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The lands in question are disputably minor inams lands covered by T.S. No. 1119 of T. Udayar and a suo motu enquiry was conducted initially after the abolition of the inam under Tamil Nadu Act 30/63 by the settlement Tahsildar, VII, Tanjore, By his proceedings dt. 1.11.1979 he held that it was a service inam and granted patta in favour of Krishnamurthy Bhattachariar, son of Vedantha Bhattachariar under Section 8(2)(ii) subject to the conditions laid down in section 21(3) of the Act. This order was challenged by competing claimant by name Sundaramurthy Pandithar claiming patta in respect of certain properties in his capacity as a piper of the Temple. The Tribunal in I.R.T. No. 5/76 by an order dt. 31.7.1976 set aside the orders dt. 1.11.1970 and remanded the matter to the original Authority for consideration afresh. The Assistance Settlement Officer, who became the competent Authority by then, took up the matter on his file and conducted a full-fledged enquiry and by his proceedings dt. 9.11.1976 while rejecting the claim projected by Sundaramurthy Pandithar, held that the grant was really in favour of the institution and directed the grant of patta under Section 11(2)(b) of the Temple represented by the hereditary trustee. This order was again challenged by Krishnamurthy Bhattachariar before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 2/77. The Tribunal once again by its order dt. 16.11.1977 and set aside the order of the authority below and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer with a direction to held fresh enquiry by giving Opportunities to all the authorities concerned to let in fresh and further evidence and dispose of the case according to law. Two documents, which were filed as additional evidence at the appellate stage before the Tribunal, were also directed to be considered, after giving opportunity to the H.R. & C.E. Department also. Thereupon, the matter has been taken up for consideration by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, and after considering the entire materials on record and also construing that the grant in question, the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dt. 31.1.1979 held that the grant was really in favour of the institution Sri Athikesava Perumal Temple and that the appellant's predecessor-in-interest were only looking after and administering the same as hereditary trustee-cum-archakas and that the grant was not in favour of any individual, on condition of rendering services. As a matter of fact, in arriving at such a conclusion, the Assistant Settlement Officer placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sundara Battar v. W. Ramakrishna Naidu ((1962) 75 L.W. 485) and also the manner of enjoyment of the properties at the relevant points of time. Aggrieved Krishnamurthy Bhattachariar filed an appeal in I.A.T.A. No. 37/79 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal at Cuddalore and the Tribunal also confirmed the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, after exhaustive consideration of the matter in the light of the original grant and the terms thereof as disclosed from the copy of the inam fair register marked in the proceedings. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record and it is those legal representatives of the original appellant, who have filed the above appeal. S.T.A. No. 14/85 :- The above appeal has been filled under Tamil Nadu Act 38/1963 against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Cuddalore, in I.A.T.A. No. 38/1979, whereunder the Tribunal, chose to confirm the orders of the Assistant/Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, dated 31.1.1979 granting patta in respect of the lands in question in favour of Sri Marudheeswarar Temple represented by its hereditary trustee for the time being. The lands in disputes in this appeal are indisputably minor inam lands covered by T.D. No. 1 118 of T. Udayar and after the abolition of the inam under the Act, the Settlement Tahsildar VII, Tanjore, initiated suo motu enquiry under the Act and by his proceedings dt. 1.11.1979 granted the patta in favour of Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 21(3) of the Act on the view that the grant was a service inam. The said order was challenged by one Sundaramurthy Pandithar claiming patta in respect of certain properties as a piper of the Temple and the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 4/76 by its order dated 31.7.1976 set aside the earlier orders passed by the Settlement Tahsildar and remitted the matter for consideration afresh. The Assistant Settlement Officer, who took up the matter to file, on his becoming the competent authority, made a full-fledged enquiry and by his order dt. 9.11.1976 not only rejected the claim of Thiru Sundaramurthy Pandithar, but also held that the grant was really in favour of the institution and directed the grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(2)(b) read with Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act in favour of the Temple represented by its hereditary trustee. Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal felt aggrieved by the said order, challenged the order before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Cuddalore, in I.A.T.A. No. 1/77. The Tribunal by its order dt. 15-11-1977 set aside the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded the matter afresh to the Assistant Settlement Officer with a direction to hold fresh enquiry by giving opportunities to all the parties concerned to let in fresh and further evidence and to dispose of the case according to law. A direction was also issued to give an opportunity to the H.R. & C.E. Department to make its representation in the matter. Thereupon, the matter has been taken over by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, he having been notified for the purpose. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Cuddalore, by his order dt. 31.1.1979 elaborately considered the entire materials produced including the extract of the inam fair register and came to the conclusion that the grant was really in favour of the temple and that Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal was only administering the lands in his capacity as the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka and also adverted to the manner of administration of the land all along and upheld the claim of the institution. Aggrieved Madhava Gurukkal @ Manicka Gurukkal pursued the matter before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 38/79. Sundaramurthy Pandhithar also, aggrieved against the denial of his claim, as a piper to a portion of the land filed I.A.T.A. No. 84/79. Both these appeals were heard together and by a common order dated 30.11.1983, the Tribunal, after an elaborate consideration of the entire materials on record including the extract of the inam fair register and also taking into account certain adjudications made by the Civil Court marked as exhibits in the proceedings, confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing the grant of patta in favour of the institution represented by its hereditary trustee. Aggrieved, the appellant before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 38/79 filed the above appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives have been brought on record to prosecute the matter further. It is worth noticing at this stage that Sundaramurthy Pandithar has not chosen to file himself any appeal before this Court against the rejection of his appeal before the Tribunal in I.A.T.A. No. 84 of 1979. Therefore, for all purpose the claim of Sundaramurthy Pandithar needs no consideration about his entitlement for patta in this appeal.
(3.) MR. Vanchinathan, learned counsel for the appellants in both the above appeals, vehemently contended that the authorities below have misconstrued the nature of the grant and that the real nature of the grant is to the ancestors respective of the appellants for rendering service in the respective temples in question and therefore they alone are entitled to patta and consequently the patta granted in favour of the temples cannot be sustained. Argued the learned counsel further that the remission was made by the Tribunal below only on the appeals filled by Sundaramurthy Pandhithar and therefore the appellants' claim was required to be considered only vis-a-vis the claims of Sundaramurthy Pandhithar and that it was not open to the Assistant Settlement Officer to reopen the entire matter and to decide whether the temples as such were entitled to the grant of patta. The Counsel for Sundaramurthy Pandithar, who was one of the respondents in the appeals, could not make any substantial claim in his favour and he was satisfied with a merely opposing the claim of the appellants for the grants in their favour. The learned Government Advocate made submissions in favour of the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Cuddalore who was impleaded as party respondent. The learned Government Advocate adopted the reasons assigned by the authorities below and contended that the orders are well-merited and did not call for any interference in these appeals.;