He stated that the appellant was only a cultivating tenant and it was so recorded in D.C.P. accounts of temple from 1959 to 1984, the rent being 10 kulams of paddy per year.
The appellate Tribunal said that in the present case, it has been proved clearly that the entire properties mentioned in the appeal are the private properties, belonging to the Respondent.
During the hearing, it allowed an application by the appellant for adducing additional evidence companysisting of an order dated 1.7.72 in Petition No.
He examined himself us PW 1 and five other witnesses as PW 2 to 6.
1997 Supp 6 SCR 282 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.
He admitted that Exs.
The primary authority finally held that the temple was entitled to patta under Section 9.
In companyumn 9 relating to melwaram right numberodys name is mentioned.
Settlement Officer Asst.
religious institutions have been exempted Irom proving personal cultivation.
5,000 and brought the rocky and waste land under cultivation from 1944 onwards.
The appellant even filed petitions for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Fair Rent Act during 1965 and 1981 but he withdrew the same and suddenly started claiming kudikani rights.
He admitted he had numberdocument to prove Kudikani rights number were there any muchilakas executed by the temple in his favour.
That was an appeal preferred against the order of the lnam abolition Tribunal Sub.
Enjoyment of the petitioner shows enjoyment and possession of the temple.
The appellant claimed that he cultivated the land under orders of the Collector under the Grow More Food Scheme, spent Rs.
23/72 of the temple above stated was allowed and it was held that the appellant was only a tenant.
In his evidence, he stated that he did number know that the Second of Rights showed that the land belonged to the temple.
That order has become final.
The other document produced as additional evidence was the tenancy Register which again showed the appellant only as a tenant.
Column 9 of Record of Rights only indicates the melwaram rights.
The decision of the tribunIals Before the primary tribunal, the respondent temple claimed patta under Section 9 as the landholder, Dr. Devadoss hereinafter called the appellant lor companyvenience claimed ryotwari patta on the basis that he was having the Kudikani or kudivaram rights.
Courl Thanjavur in CMA No.
Except to say he was cultivating the land.
The appellant was number a cultivating tenant under the Grow More Food Cam paign.
PW 2 to 6 supported his case, PW 4, the village account ant from 1946 to 1980 admitted that companyumn 8 of Record of Rights showed the temple as pattadar, the land was inam and that companyumn 8 would record who has got kudikani rights.
RW 1, the present temple Accountant stated that in the Record of Rights, the temples name was recorded in Column 8.
He denied the suggestion that the land belonged to the temple.
EO PKT 94 on remand granting ryotwari patta to the respondent temple as a landholder under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963 Act 26/1963 hereinafter called the 1963 Act .
From 1973, numberrent was paid till date and demand numberices were issued.
He expressed ignorance of the fact that the Revenue Divisional Record described him as a tenant.
The temple examined its accountant as RW 1.
In the companynter thereto a companyy of which was placed before us by the appellants companynsel , the appellant admitted No doubt, the applicant temple was the landholder but pleaded that once the Act 26/63 came into force, the land vested in the State and he therefore denied that the temple was the landlord on that the appellant was only a tenant.
The appellate Tribunal thus relied on the additional evidence produced by the appellant to hold against the appellant.
He had number filed any document to show that he came into possession through proceedings of the Collector under the Grow More Food Campaign.
Law Tax Officer dated 4.5.1985 in T8.5.
75, Athaloor Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Thanjavur District.
9 and 10 adangals for 1960, 1961 showed the temple as pattadar and himself as tenant.
Further, it has been proved by the Respondent through documentary evidence, that the appel lant has been cultivating the entire properties mentioned in the appeal, in the capacity as a tenant only.
On appeal by the appellant, the appellate Tribunal Sub Court dis missed the appeal.
He admitted that in a case filed by the temple against him, the temple claimed it had turvaram rights.
23 of 1985, by which the said Tribunal had companyfirmed the order of the Asst.
The appellate Tribunal also relied on the amendment by T.N. Act 27 of 1966 relating to exemption in favour of temple from provilling self cultivation and observed We companyld grant exemption to the Respondent, being a Hindu temple, in respect of the lands for which patta is requested as per the Amendment act 27/66, even though the entire properties are number in the enjoyment of Respondent directly.
The application No.
On this material, the primary authority held that it was clearly established that the temple was having iruvaram rights and the appellant was only a tenant, It then referred to the exemption in favour of temple from proving self cultivation in T.N. Act 27/1966 and said Under the Act 27/66.
23/72 filed by the temple before the Record Officer, Pattugottai.
This appeal has been preferred by the legal representative of one Dr, Devadoss against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Special Tribunal Appeal No.
4 of 1993 dated 21,1.1997, dismissing the appeal of the said Dr. Devadoss a legal representative.
