Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Venkataswami

ORDER

K. Venkataswami, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment and order made in S.T.A. Nos. 174, 181 and 210 of 1974 on the file of the Madras High Court.

2. The brief facts leading to these appeals as noted in the High Court judgment are the following :

The first respondent-temple was the grantee of a minor inam comprising of lands bearing old S. Nos. 173 and 175 of the total extent of 19.58 acres in Pollachi village. The terms of the original grant as such were not available, however, the Inam fair register produced in the proceedings showed that the grant was a devadayam religious inam of a permanent character given rent-free for the support of the temple. The Inam was confirmed in the year 1863 under the title deed No. 161. By the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (hereinafter called the Act) minor inams were abolished and Ryotwari settlement was introduced. The Settlement Tehsildar No. II Gobi Chet-tipalayam initiated an enquiry for the purpose of grant of a Ryotwari patta under the provisions of the said Act. The appellants herein and also the first respondent temple appeared before the said settlement Tehsildar and asked for Ryotwari patta to be issued in their favour in regard to the lands in their respective possession. The appellants in particular, contended before the settlement Tehsildar that the first respondent temple had lost possession of the Inam lands soon after the grant as the lands were alienated by one Thirumalai Ayyan, pujari of the temple in whose favour the Inam Commissioner had conferred the grant. Be it noted that no sale deed by the said individual was produced by the appellants before the Settlement Tehsildar at the time of the enquiry, nor before the appellate authority or before the High Court or even before this Court. Instead the appellants placed strong reliance on a partition deed dated 17.2.1888 between three members of a joint family by name Kuppanna Mudaliar, Marianna Mudaliar and Lakshmana Mudaliar. Placing reliance on the recitals in the said partition deed and also the sale deeds subsequent to the said partition deed executed by the successors-in-interest of the said joint family members, the appellants contended that the temple had lost its title to the Inam lands.

3. Though the Settlement Tehsildar did not agree with the contention of the appellants that the partition deeds relied on by the appellants could be taken as an alienation by the Inamdar of the lands in question, strangely granted patta to the appellants under Section