https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275408 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. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 1923 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:51:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275408 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Dec 1923 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275408