High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 23..12..2009C O R A MThe Honourable Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVANandThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. SATHYANARAYANANS.T.A. No.2 of 19961.L. Ameer2.G.L. Ahamed (deceased)3.Mrs. Zubaidhakhatoon4.P. Jegannathan5.K.M. Narayanan6.D. Abdul Majeed (died)7.K.P. Ramalingam8.Mrs. Kaneez Fathima (died)9.Mrs. Fathima Bi (deceased) 10.A.M. Ahamed Kabir11.A,M. Zahir Ahamed12.A.M. Nazar Ahamed13. A.M. Mohamed Basheer14.A.M. Mumtaz Zuleikha15.A.M. Mehrun Zuleikha(Apellants 10 to 15 have been brought onrecord as LRs. of the deceased 6th appellantvide order of court dated 14.3.1997 inC.T.P. Nos.8 to 10 of 1997 by DRJ & VKJ).. Appellants/ Petitioners versus1.The Assistant Settlement Officer,Thiruvannamalai, 5th Street, Gandhi Nagar, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District.2.M/s. V.A.K. Engineering Company (P) Ltd.,Rep. By its Director George Thomas,No.326, M.K.N. Road,Alandur, Madras-16... Respondents/RespondentsPrayer : Memorandum of Grounds of Special Tribunal Appealunder Section 30(1) of Act 30 of 1963 against the decree andjudgment dated 22.11.1995 made in M.I.C.M.A. No.28 of 1993on the file of the Inam Tribunal (Subordinate Judge),Chengalpattu. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Thiagarajan For Respondent-1 : Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr. Abdu Kumar RajarathnamJ U D G M E N TPRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.This appeal has been filed against an order of the Inam Tribunaldated 22.11.1995. The property, subject matter of the dispute, is :Land in Old Paimash Nos.717, 718, 721 and 722 correlated toR.S. No.20/1 Part, present T.S. No.122, Ward-E, Block-I ofAlandur Municipality, Adambakkam Village, measuring an extent of14505 sq.mts. or thereabout, bounded on the North by land inPaimash No.859, correlated to T.S. No.105, belonging to thecompany, South by Railway line of Southern Railway, West by WaterChannel, East by Tiruvotteeswarar Manickam land situated withinthe Registration District of South Madras and the RegistrationSub District of Alandur.2. On 15.7.1991, the Assistant Settlement Officer atTiruvannamalai passed an order in S.R. Nos.130 and 131 of 1988granting patta under Section 13(1) of the Minor Inams (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act', to the respondent-Company with respect toT.S. No.122 for an extent of 1.45.05 sq.mts. and T.S. No.105 for anextent of 1.0750.50 sq.mts. In the proceedings, the Inamdar, who wasthe Aadheena Kartha, Kundrakudi Adheenam Tiruvannamalai Mutt and theclaimants, viz. the respondents and the appellants herein, took part.Earlier, in the proceedings which commenced on 31.7.1988 in respectof other lands including the property, subject matter of theseappeals, the then Assistant Settlement Officer had, after conductingan enquiry, held over the matter since the appellants herein hadrequested that certain records had been filed in the civilproceedings. Thereafter, the Assistant Settlement Officer heard theparties and granted patta. Against that, an appeal was filed to theSettlement Officer, Thanjavur. By order dated 31.12.1991, theSettlement Officer held that the existence of building over the landowned by either party should be proved and it must also be shown thatthey were in existence on or before the notified date, in order toattract the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act and since in thiscase, that was not proved beyond doubt, the Settlement Officer setaside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded thematter for fresh enquiry and disposal. Against that, the respondentsherein filed a revision before the Commissioner of LandAdministration, who, upon hearing the submissions made by the partiesas well as the documents produced, found that the order of remand did https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not suffer from any infirmity. The Settlement Officer found that theorder of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting ground rent pattato the respondents herein insofar as T.S. No.105 was concerned wascorrect and the remand was restricted to T.S. No.122 which measures1.4505 sq.mts. bearing R.S. No.20/1 correlating to Paimash Nos.717,718, 721/3 and 722/2. We are concerned only with this property. Itis this order that was confirmed by the Commissioner of LandAdministration. After remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer, byorder dated 9.9.1993, conducted the enquiry with relation to T.S.No.122 and held that the appellants were entitled to ryotwari pattaunder Section 80/1 for T.S. No.122. Against this, an appeal wasfiled under Section 11(3) before the Inam Tribunal. The order passedtherein is challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal held that therespondents were entitled to ryotwari patta and allowed the appeal.3. Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1 and 19 of 2009 were filed by theparties for reception of additional evidence. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submittedthat the order of the Inam Tribunal suffers from various infirmities.There was no justification to hold that the Roka pattas andMuchalikkas could be created at any point of time, for they are notregistered documents. Learned senior counsel submitted that the lawrequires the issuance of Roka pattas and Muchalikkas and failure bythe land holder gives the occupant a right to issue, and referred tothe Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The learned senior counselsubmitted that the conclusions of the Tribunal were based only onsurmises, as for instance the assumption that Pattammal and herhusband would not have purchased the property if the Kudivaram rightwas with the Adheenam. The learned senior counsel submitted thatwhen admittedly the Melvaram right was with Adheenam, the respondentsought to trace any right they had from the Adheenam. Failure to doso would mean that they do not have any right in the property.Wheras, the appellants have produced the pattas signed by theIzaradar of the Adheenam. The learned senior counsel submitted thatthe respondents do not know whether they claim right under Section 8or under section 13. The scopes of the two sections are totallydifferent and this lack of clarity with regard to their own right wasnot taken note of by the Tribunal which erroneously directed thegrant of ryotwari patta to the respondent. The learned seniorcounsel submitted that the applicant for reception ot admission ofdocuments filed by the respondents ought not to be received since itwas only a charge sheet and it did not prove anything and a perusalof that would show that it was a verbatim reproduction of thecomplaint. The learned senior counsel also submitted that theTribunal based its rejection of the appellants' claim by fixing theage of Bhuvanammal as ten years at the time of grant of patta. Astray document was referred to for arriving at the conclusion. Thelearned senior counsel submitted that it is true that the appellantshad produced a Transfer Certificate to prove Bhuvanammal's age and a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Division Bench of this Court, on 16.10.2000, had refused to believethe document. According to the learned senior counsel, theconclusion of the Division Bench can only be a prima facie one. Inany event, the dismissal of the S.T.A. on the ground that thedocument produced was fraudulent was challenged by the appellantsherein and the Supreme Court remitted the matter for disposal of theappeal on merits ignoring the alleged false document and that is howthis matter is now before this Court. The learned senior counselsubmitted that if opportunity is given, the appellants could provethat Bhuvanammal was not just ten years old and he referred to theplaint filed by the respondents in O.S. No.241 of 1984 where sixchildren of Bhuvanammal have been impleaded on her death and hereferred to their ages and submitted that it would be easy todemonstrate that on the date when the Roka patta and Muchalika wasgiven, Bhuvanammal was more than ten years old. Learned seniorcounsel further submitted that the investigation report cannot takethe place of evidence in Court and for this purpose, relied on (1997)6 S.C.C. 171 [Vijender vs. State of Delhi] and A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2485[Kaptan Singh vs. State of M.P.], where the Supreme Court held thatthe order of acquittal based solely on the result of investigationwas patently wrong. He also referred to 2001 (3) L.W. 97[Adheenakarthar, Sri Kundrakkudi, Thiruvannamalai Mutt, Kundrakkudivs. Thiru. M. Pattabhiraman], which pertained to the same T.D. No.482and by this Court had declared with the Adheenam did not have theKudivaram right. Learned senior counsel also produced severaldocuments which he wanted to be received as additional documents toprove the age of Bhuvanammal.5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentssubmitted that even de hors the investigation report, if the Tribunalhad entertained some doubt regarding the documents and found that thedocuments have been got up only for the purpose of the proceedingsand they cannot be relied on, especially when there is no material todisturb that finding, even without going into the investigationreport, the claim of the appellants should be rejected. Learnedsenior counsel submitted that when the Kudivaram right of the Inamdarhas been denied by this Court, then it is not necessary for therespondents to show anything except the existence of buildings on thenotified date as per Section 13 of the Act. Learned senior counselfurther submitted that once the ingredients of Section 13 of the Actare satisfied, then ground rent patta must be granted. Learnedsenior counsel also submitted that no exception can be taken to theTribunal ordering the grant of ryotwari patta since even ground rentpatta and ryotwari patta are dealt with in the Act under the sameChapter and therefore, the right of the respondents must berecognised. Learned senior counsel referred to (1975) 1 S.C.C. 770[Paspuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor and General Traders], wherethe Supreme Court had held that when subsequent events which have afundamental impact on the right to relief are brought to the noticeof the Court/Tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ events. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that thesubsequent events, viz., the enquiry report must be taken note of andtherefore, the petition for receiving additional evidence must beallowed. He also relied on (2007) 4 S.C.C. 221 [A.V. Papayya Sastryvs. Govt. of A.P.], where the Supreme Court had held that a judgment,decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non-est inthe eye of law and it can be challenged in any Court at any time inappeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 6. We have already referred to the order passed by the AssistantSettlement Officer on 15.7.1991 and the one by the Settlement Officeron 31.12.1991, which was confirmed by the order of the Commissionerof Land Administration on 28.5.1993. We have also referred to theorder passed on remand dated 9.9.1993 by the Assistant SettlementOfficer. In the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunalproceeded, inter alia, to decide the issue on the basis of theassumption that if the Kudivaram right had been with the KundrakkudiAdheenam, then Pattammal and her husband would not have purchased theproperty and that they would have definitely brought the Adheenam onrecord, and if the Kudivaram right had not gone with the propertyfrom Thirunavukkarasar and others, they would not have sold it toGarlic and Company. The Tribunal also held that the Roka Pattas andMuchalikkas "could not have come into existence at the point of timementioned in the said documents for the simple reason that at therelevant period, Bhuvanammal was just ten years old" and thereforethey must have come into existence for the purpose of this case. Sobasically, the decision was based on presumption rather than facts.7. There is no controversy with regard to the issue that fraudrenders all actions null and void. We also have no quarrel with theproposition that subsequent events, if they have a bearing on theissue, must be taken note of. At the same time, we also have toconsider to what extent the subsequent events can be taken note of.In the present case, merely because a charge sheet has been filed, wecannot reject the appeal filed by the persons who are arrayed asaccused in the charge sheet. It is true that the charge relates tofalsification of records. But the criminal trial has not reached aconclusion and therefore, if the appellants can produce documentswhich are genuine and which support heir claim under the provisionsof the Act, they should be allowed and they cannot be shut out merelyon the basis of one document which leads to the conclusion that theperson to whom the Izaradar granted patta was only ten years old onthat date. We have also not forgotten that an attempt was made bythe appellants to produce a document, which was disbelieved by thisCourt. But it is brought to our notice that factually she could nothave been ten years old on that date and the learned senior counselsubmits that if an opportunity is given, it would be possible toproduce the details of the births of the seven children, which wouldclearly establish at least how old Bhuvanammal would have been on thedate of the issuance of the patta or that at least she was not ten https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years old. 8. As regards pattas and Muchalikkas, Section 8 of the Act dealswith grant of ryotwari pattas to a person lawfully entitled, whichterm we have already referred. Section 9 deals with the grant ofryotwari pattas in cases not covered by Section 8. Under Section 13(1), the Act declares that the buildings situated within the limitsof an inam land shall vest in the person who owned it immediatelybefore the appointed day and Section 13(2) provides that 'building'would include the appurtenant land too. 'Inamdar' as defined bySection 2(6) is the person who held the inam immediately before theappointed day. 'Inam' means, as per Section 2(5), a grant of theMelvaram in any inam land or a grant of both the Melvaram andKudivaram in any inam land. Therefore, without the grant of theMelvaram, there can be no inam. Either it is the grant of theMelvaram alone or along with Kudivaram. Therefore, any one whoclaims any right in respect of any inam cannot do so de hors theMelvaramdar. Section 3(d) of the Act protects certain rights ofpersons cultivating any land in the minor inam and also limits therights and privileges which an Inamdar shall be entitled to or therights and privileges of any person against such Inamdar. For thegrant of ryotwari pattas under Section 8, the person claiming to beentitled to Kudivaram right must prove by virtue of any grant in hisfavour, and mere possession or cultivation of lands for any length oftime cannot be equated to Kudivaram interest – vide 1998 (1) L.W. 448[V. Subramanya Thevar vs. Kannan]. 9. The Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 refers to Izaradar as afarmer of rent, but we must remember here that a minor inam, by itsdefinition, inter alia, is any inam which is not an estate within themeaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act or Section 2(9) ofthe Minor Inams Abolition Act. Of course, the explanation to Section2(9) of the Minor Inams Act provides that if the land is granted onservice tenures and is governed by Section 17(1)(b) and (2) of theInams Abolition Act or Section 14(1)(b) and (2) of the InamsAbolition Act, it is deemed to be a minor inam. The Madras EstatesLand Act refers to pattas and muchalikkas and as submitted by thelearned senior counsel for the appellants, this patta is not what weunderstand, viz. as pattas. The pattas and muchalikkas are exchangedsubject to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Madras Estates LandAct. The contents of the patta and muchalikka are listed in Section51; suits can be filed to obtain patta under Section 55 of the Actand to enforce the acceptance of patta under Section 56; and underSection 58, the Village Karnam shall regularly sign and register thepattas and muchalikkas in respect of the holding. From the aboveprovisions, we have to conclude that the pattas granted under thisAct stand on a different footing and cannot be brushed aside as gotup for the purpose of the proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. We will now discuss the history and the entitlement and therights of Kudivaram and Melvaramdars. In 2001 (3) L.W. 97 (supra),the same Adambakkam Village and the rights of the Adheenakarthar wasin question. The Settlement Officer had held that the appellant-Adheenam held only the melvaram and not both the varams. TheIzaradar had given a statement before the Assistant SettlementOfficer "to the effect that the whole village was granted as inam tothe Adheenam and that he enjoyed both the varams in the village".There was an order dated 14.10.1971 that the grant was a part villagegrant or a minor inam grant. The Assistant Settlement Officer arrivedat, inter alia, the following conclusions :-•that the Inam fair register extract does not throw any lightabout the Iruvaram right;•that the various documents, sale deeds, mortgage deeds,settlement deeds, etc. considered along with the pattas issuedby the Inamdar as well as its Izaradar disclose that thevillagers had Kudivaram rights;•that the Muchalikkas, Roka pattas and Manaivari pattas grantedby the Inamdar and Izaradar disclose that in the event offailure to pay the Thirway, Provisions of Act 8 of 1965 andMadras Act 1 of 1908 would be invoked to realise the arrears,that though it was contended that since it has been now declaredthat the grant to the institution was not an estate and sinceAct 1 of 1908 cannot be invoked, those wordings are invalidwhile the fact remained that the Inamdar himself issued pattasbetween 1906 and 1964 and that further entries in Adangals forfaslis 1356, 1357, 1375, 1363 (Ex.C11 series) disclose thatexcept Patta No.7, all other lands were in the holding of theRyots;•that the Inamdar held both varams in respect of patta No.7 aloneand in respect of other lands, Kudivaram rights were held by theobjectors-villagers.The matter was argued at length and all the decisions with regard tothese Acts, viz. Act 26 of 1948 and Act 30 of 1963 were referred toand it was submitted that under Act 30 of 1963, what has to be shownis possession of both varams, whereas the concept was different underthe Estate Lands Act. 11. In (1978) 91 L.W. 142 [The Karivaradaraja Perumal Temple atPollachi vs. K.S.J. Raju Chetiar & other], it was held that theexpression "lawfully entitled to Kudivaram occurring in Section 8(1)would only be applicable to the cases where the person claiming to beentitled to ryotwari patta is in possession to show that he wasentitled to Kudivaram interest under the very terms of the grant ofthe inam. The Division Bench, in 2001 (3) L.W. 97 (supra), afterreferring to this case, came to the conclusion that the Adheenam hadnever held the Kudivaram right and the villages were holding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lands as ryots and that in T.D. No. 482 of 1862, the Melvaram rightin varouf of the Adheenam was confirmed. Therefore, the DivisionBench held that as per Section 44 of the Act, where the inam isgranted for the benefit of any religious, educational or charitableinstitution for rendering service, the presumption is that the grantconsists of both the varams, unless the contrary is proved. In theabove case, the Adheenam contended that the grant was a continuousone for the service of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy in the Madam ofDeivasigamani Desiga Sannadhi and therefore, the benefit of Section44 would enure to them. As we have said already, the Division Benchheld otherwise and all the counsel submit that the matter has gonebefore the Supreme Court. This is a fact that we must bear in mindsince it will have an effect on the right claimed by the partiesherein.12. In 1970 (II) M.L.J. 316 [Mannarswami Nattar vs. ArumughaMudaliar] a learned single Judge of this Court dealt with the EstatesLand Act. The plaintiff therein filed the suit for, what he called,is a Melvaram share. The defendants resisted it saying that with thevesting of the estate, the liability to pay Melvaram ceased and thequestion was, whether the defendants were ryots. The plaintifftraced his title to a revenue sale and the sale deed showed that theproperty was not the Roka patta of the vendor. On the basis of thesedocuments, the learned single Judge held that the plaintiff was therecognised pattadar of the lands and he was paying the kist due tothe land holder. The defendant claimed that they were in occupationeven from prior to 1908. It was held thus :"... But there is no proof that they were ever inpossession directly under the Zamindar, paying kist to theZamindar. They and their predecessors were admittedlypaying shares in the yield to the plaintiff and hispredecessors. The defendants made a feeble suggestion thatthe plaintiff and his predecessors were Izaradars. But theCourts below have found that there is no evidence towarrant it. The plaintiff and his predecessors-in-tilewere not just farmers of revenue, collecting rent for thelandlord. They were not realising from the defendants andtheir predecessors what otherwise the landholder wasentitled to receive from them interposing themselvesbetween them and the landholder. The plaintiff and hispredecessors acquired title to the suit properties underthe Zamindar either in revenue sales of the kudivaraminterest or by purchase from pattadars of the lands, withliability to pay rent to the landholder."13. In 1998 (II) C.T.C. 196 [Society of St. Joseph's College vs.A. Doraisami], where Act 30 of 1963 was in question, there is anexplanation of the scope of these Acts. It was held thus : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "4. Inams were granted by sovereigns for religious andcharitable purposes. Inam in some cases comprised of rightto collect the assessment in a particular village, and thesame is termed as an Inam Estate. In some cases, itcomprised of land free of assessment which is calledIruvarm Inam Lands. Inam which comprised of Iruvaramlands, which do not fall in the category of Inam Estatesare called Minor Inams. Such minor Inams were alienatedindiscriminately by the Inamdars and the purpose of thegrant was not achieved. There were difficulties inresuming the Inam by the Government on account of longpossession by the alienees and the rights flowing from suchlong possession. Hence the Legislature thought it fit torecognise the possessory right acquired and to impose aryotwari assessment on such lands. Tamil Nadu Minor Inams(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 wasenacted not only for the purpose of abolishing the Inamtenure and to convert the same into ryotwari tenure. Theresult is the assessment is levied on the lands and theright vested in the person in possession is recognised.The rights of a ryot who is in enjoyment of a minor Inamland, who is lawfully entitled to the Kudiwaram right andwho satisfied the conditions laid down under the Act, arerecognised and a ryotwari patta is given to him under theprovisions of the said Act."It was also held thus :"15. ... The provisions relating to abolition andvesting of the properties do not have the effect ofobliterating or destroying such pre-existing rights, ifany, except in respect of public or communal properties andthe rights which inhere are the basic and fundamentalrights which entitle a person to preferentially get pattaunder these legislations, and the same could not be equatedto the grant of patta by way of assignment under theRevenue Standing Orders or under rules of assignmentoutside the scope of the statutory enactments. Similarly,a meticulous analysis of the scheme underlying theprovisions of the Act dealing with the nature of rightsdealt with by the various authorities, the manner in whichsuch authorities adjudicate such rights and theconsequences of such adjudication, disclose that they donot mean and even intend to be a substitute or alternatemode of resolution of the ordinary civil right of a citizenor for that matter persons asserting competing claims, intheir attempt to project a claim for patta..." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. The duty of the Assistant Settlement Officer / Tribunalwhile exercising their statutory power under the Act is explained in1992 Law Weekly 425 [A.N.N.K. Mohamed Kasim vs. Alagan]. This isrelevant and applicable to the present case, though that case aroseunder Act 26 of 1963 :"4. ... The Assistant Settlement Officer, as well asthe Tribunal were under an obligation to go into each itemof the lands and to find out as to whether it is a privateland or a ryoti land for the purpose of deciding the claimto ryotwari patta put forward by the parties. As we havepointed out already, the Assistant Settlement Officer heldthat all the lands were private lands, while the Tribunalheld that all the lands were ryoti lands. In our opinion,this is over-simplification of the controversy between theparties. It is true that before the Assistant SettlementOfficer, the appellants put forward the claim that all thelands were private lands. From that, it does not followthat if it is established that some of the lands were ryotilands, the entire claim of the appellants must be thrownout. It is for the authorities below to examine which landwas ryoti land and further examine with reference to suchland, who was entitled to patta and under which provision.""5. ... The Tribunal shall find out whether all thelands in the estate are private lands or ryoti lands, andif some of them are private lands and some of them areryoti lands, the Tribunal shall further find out withreference to which private lands the appellants will beentitled to patta, if they satisfy the requirements of S.9,and in respect of which of the ryoti lands, each of therespondents will be entitled to ryotwari patta. If by anychance, the Tribunal is not in a position to decide thematter itself, it is certainly open to it to remand thematter to he Assistant Settlement Officer."We are of the opinion that the above observations would apply to thecase on hand also.15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentsproduced an unreported judgment of this Court in Writ PetitionNos.1983 and 3304 of 1967 dated 26.8.1969 [K. Lakshminarayanan &Another vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Another], whicharose out of the proceedings before the State Transport AppellateTribunal. The learned single Judge held that once the Tribunal cameto the conclusion that the appellant before it was not entitled toget permit, the only order that the Tribunal can pass is to dismissthe appeal, and the Tribunal cannot allow the appeal in part and set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permitto the other party. This was referred to, to show that when theTribunal had given its reasons for rejecting the appeal filed by theappellants, if this Court found that the appeal was without merit,all it can do is to dismiss the appeal, but not set aside the orderdirecting the issuance of ryotwari patta. This decision may not havemuch relevance to the case on hand, since we have given our reasonsfor setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 16. Further, we also find the submissions made by the learnedsenior counsel for the appellants that while the respondents makes aclaim, he should know whether his claim is to be dealt with underSection 8 or under Section 13. The two have a totally differentscope. We agree with him there and for this reason also, we findthat the order of the Tribunal is vulnerable to attack. Since it isadmitted that the claim of the Adheenam that they held both thevarams is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court, anyproceedings with respect to the inam in question must be in thepresence of the Adheenam, though they are not party in this appeal. 17. Therefore, while the Tribunal definitely had to scrutinisewhether the documents were genuine, it cannot reject the documentsmerely because they are not registered documents of sale. We are ofthe opinion that the Tribunal had been persuaded to reject the claimof the appellants only because it had concluded that Bhuvanammal wasonly ten years old, unless there is a registered document, the claimof the appellants cannot be upheld. We also hold that as regards theobjection of the appellants that the respondents ought to know underwhat category they claim the patta. We are not basing our decisionon the enquiry report, it is not necessary for us to receive thatapplication as an additional document. Further, it is well settledthat the contents of a charge sheet is not a proof of guilt. At thesame time, we are also not inclined to receive the additionaldocuments filed by the appellants. On an earlier occasion, they hadfiled a document, the veracity of which was doubted. It was open tothe appellants to produce whatever document that they think isnecessary to support their case. 18. For all these reasons, the impugned order is set aside andthe matter is remanded back to the Inam Tribunal, where the claims ofboth the claimants shall be decided. The Tribunal shall issue noticeto the Adheenam, the Inamdar, before deciding the matter. It hasbeen held by our Court that the Assistant Settlement Officer, doesnot have the jurisdiction to decide inter se disputes, but however,he can decide the claim on its own merit with reference to therecords produced. In view of the subsequent event that is brought toour notice by the respondents, viz. the initiation of criminalproceedings for falsification of records, the Tribunal shall alsoexamine whether the patta granted by the Izaradar is genuine and alsoas to whether the Izaradar had the competence to issue such patta. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Tribunal may also receive additional evidence, if produced, inaccordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, S.T.P. Nos.1 and 19 of 2009 are closed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarabTo.1. The Inam Tribunal(Subordinate Court) Chengalpattu.2. The Adheenakarthar, Kundrakudi Adheenam, Thiruvannamalai Mutt, Kundrakudi, Sivagangai District.3. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, 5th Street, Gandhi Nagar, Thiruvannamalai.4. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+ 2 cc to Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam,Advocate,sR.71449+ 1 cc to Mr.P.Thiagarajan,Advocate,SR.71305 Judgment inS.T.A. No.2 of 1996 KA(CO)EM/11.1.10