Permanent occupancy in temple endowment lands must be proved by lawful grant or custom, not inferred from long possession.

Temple village lands were held not to be an "estate" under Madras Act I of 1908, because the title materials showed the property had been granted and regranted as a religious endowment carrying both melvaram and kudivaram interests. On that footing, no tenant's permanent occupancy right arose under section 6. A separate claim of permanent occupancy also failed, as no lawful grant, custom, or other recognised source was proved; long possession, receipts, alienations, and descriptive usage could not establish a heritable tenancy against the temple endowment. The burden of proving such a right remained on the defendants, and they did not discharge it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the village lands formed an "estate" within the meaning of Madras Act I of 1908 so as to attract a tenant's right of permanent occupancy under section 6; (ii) Whether the defendants proved any permanent occupancy right otherwise than under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the village lands formed an "estate" within the meaning of Madras Act I of 1908 so as to attract a tenant's right of permanent occupancy under section 6.

Analysis: The title documents and historical records showed that the lands had been granted and regranted as a religious endowment to the temple, carrying both melvaram and kudivaram interests. The village was treated as temple endowment property, not as an estate in which the defendants could claim a statutory occupancy right. The evidence did not establish any pre-existing tenant right inconsistent with the temple's ownership of the whole village lands.

Conclusion: The lands were not an "estate" within Madras Act I of 1908, and no permanent occupancy right arose under section 6 in favour of the defendants.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants proved any permanent occupancy right otherwise than under the Act.

Analysis: No grant, custom, or other legally recognisable source of permanent occupancy was proved. The presumption sought from long possession, receipts, alienations, and vernacular descriptions could not be used to infer a title that would be inconsistent with the temple's endowment or with the trustees' duty. The burden lay on the defendants, and the material relied upon did not establish a heritable or permanent tenancy.

Conclusion: The defendants failed to prove any permanent occupancy right independently of the Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the defendants could not establish either a statutory estate-based occupancy right or any independent permanent tenancy right in the temple lands.

Ratio Decidendi: A permanent occupancy right in endowed temple lands cannot be presumed from long possession, descriptive usage, or alienations where no lawful grant or custom is proved, and the burden of establishing such a right lies on the tenant.

---