D. Raju, J.
1. The appellant has filed the above appeal under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu 26 of 1963. The lands in question situated at Ilavangargudi is admittedly an existing inam estate notified in G.O.Ms. No. 958 Revenue dated 21.3.1977 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar (Statutory Enquiries) and after considering the conflicting claims of the first respondent Devasthanam and the appellant, by an order dated 14.10.1978 patta was directed to be granted in respect of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. The Devasthanam filed an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam in C.M.A. No. 33 of 1979 which by an order dated 23.8.1980 came to be allowed and while setting aside the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal to the original authority. Thereupon, the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Thanjavur who came to be the competent authority to consider such claims conducted the enquiry afresh and allowed the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the appellant under Section 12(1) read with Section 10(1)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The Assistant Settlement Officer was of the view that in as much as the appellant took the lands in auction on lease agreeing to pay the rent to the temple in the year 1952 and has been continuing in possession and has also claimed benefits for reduction of rent under the Tanjore Pannaiyal Protection Act (Act 14 of 1952) the appellant must be considered to be entitled to patta on account of his continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands from 1952 retaining for himself the cultivated share of the produce. The Assistant Settlement Officer was also of the view that he was paying the rent in kind to the temple even before the notified date and since the cultivators share was retained by him it amounted to the appellant being entitled to kudiwaram interest and consequently he must be deemed to have held the lands as ryot only.
2. Aggrieved the first respondent Devasthanam filed C.M.A. (IAT) No. 32 of 1982 on the file of the Tribunal (Sub-Court, Nagapattinam). The Tribunal by its order dated 7.7.1984 set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and directed the issue of ryotwari patta in favour of the first respondent temple on the view that the oral evidence as well as the records made available at the time of enquiry before the authorities below established that the Devasthanam alone owned the lands and the appellant who was only a cultivating tenant having taken such rights in auction and bound by the terms of the lease granted praying the rental in terms of the lease deed cannot be held to be a ryot in possession of kudiwaram rights and consequently the appellant was not entitled to patta. Hence the above appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant while reiterating the stand taken before the authorities below contended that the appellant must be held to be entitled to kudiwaram rights, he having been cultivating the lands and the devasthanam not having shown to have been personally cultivating the land and therefore was entitled to patta. Strong reliance was placed on the provisions contained in Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 and also the decision of the Apex Court reported in Chidambaram v. Santanaramaswami : [1968]2SCR754 . In the above referred decision of the Supreme Court was held that the mere fact that particular lands are described in popular parlance as pannai or private is not decisive of the question unless the lands so called partake of the characteristics of domain or home farm lands, and the correct test to ascertain whether the land is domain or home farm was the one accepted by the Privy Council, in the decision reported in Yerlagudda Mallikarjuna Prasad Nayudu v. Somaya I.L.R. 42 Mad. 400, wherein it was also observed that home farm land is the land which the landlord cultivated himself as distinct from the land which he leased out to tenants to be framed.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent while adopting the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and adverting to the materials on record contended that the appellant was merely a cultivating tenant and cannot on that basis claim occupancy rights or kudiwaram interest in the land, he having entered into possession by taking the lease of the land in public auction held in the year 1952, subject to the conditions of auction. As for the plea raised and based on the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above it was contended that in view of the provisions enacted in Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1966 introducing proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act, the first respondent devasthanam which is indisputably a 'religious institution' has been exempted from the necessity of proof of personal cultivation and consequently the rights of the first respondent temple to get ryotwari patta in the favour, cannot be denied.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. As a matter of fact, subsequent to the decision reported in Chidambaram v. Santhanaramaswami : [1968]2SCR754 the principles of law have been once again reviewed by the Apex Court, while dealing with the character of land and the principles and guidelines to be applied in respect thereof under the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Andhra Pradesh Act 26 of 1948) which is in pan materia with the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) and reiterated the principles laid down in the earlier decisions reported in Chidambaram v. Santanaramaswami A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1005 and P. Venkataswami v. D.S. Ramireddy : AIR1976SC1066 ; Vide: P. Pullamma and Ors. v. Kalluri Kameswara Rao (1991) 1 L.W. 16 (S.C) It may be also noticed at this stage that the claim that was projected before the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above concerned a disputed claim between the occupant in actual possession found to be cultivating the land on the one hand and the land holder private individual and not the claim of a religious institution in respect of whom a specified special provision has been enacted in the Act itself by the Amendment Act 27 of 1966 as a consequence of which amendments were introduced to Section 9 as well as Section 10. It is seen that both in proviso to Section 9(1) as also 9(2) the provisions were so amended as to specify that in the case of a land holder other than a religious institution, the land holder has to prove that he has been cultivating the lands himself by his own service or hired labour with his own or hired stock for the required periods stipulated therein. The effect of the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1963 to the relevant provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 is that for a religious institution which happens to be the inamdar or landholder, it is not necessary to show personal cultivation to entitle it to a patta in respect of the private land. Even that apart, we are of the view that the appellant participated in an auction and became the successful bidder for the lease hold rights and that too in the year 1952 and was able to move the competent authorities and obtained reduction of the quantum of rent also by invoking the provisions of the Tanjore Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1951. At best, the possession and status of the appellant was that of an ordinary cultivating tenant in respect of the land owned by the first respondent Devasthanam and the rights of a cultivating tenant in respect of such possession cannot be equated to an occupancy right or Kudiwaram interest as it is described in the abolition laws. The overwhelming records produced before the authorities below as also the oral evidence only conforms to the status and possession of the appellant being that of a cultivating tenant and the Assistant Settlement Officer was thoroughly under a misapprehension of the nature, character and possession of the appellant in respect of the lands in question. The absolute owner of land as in this case always owns both warams. It may also be pointed out that it is not merely the ryoti character of the land that entitled the cultivating tenant like the appellant claim patta as the holder of Kudiwaram interest but he must also in addition, prove that the Ryoti land was at the relevant point of time included in the holding of the ryot and that he owned the Kudiwaram interest as the holder of the Kudiwaram interest. In the absence of such proof which is patently lacking in this case, no exception could be taken to the order of the Tribunal directing the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the first respondent-Devasthanam.
6. The appeal therefore fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.