genuine, there would be good ground for holding that Bhimanakattai mutt is the more ancient of the two. It is a grant alleged to have been made in the era of Yudhishtra 89 by Janamejaya, the greatgrandson of Yudhishtra himself. That would take the matter back to about 3,000 B.G. It is pointed out by Mr. Rice that having regard to the fact that the writing is modern Canarese and also other facts mentioned by him the copper plate inscription to say the least, is of doubtful authenticity. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to think that though the date 89 Yudhishtra era cannot be correct the grant itself is not fabricated and that it can be safely attributed to 14th century. He however fails to notice that the grant purports to be by the great-grandson of Yudhishtra himself who is said to have lived about 3,012 B.C. I think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in placing any reliance at all on Ex. JJ. Similarly I am not inclined to attach any importance to the claim that the sage Durvasa worshipped at Bhimanakattai, alleged to be his hermitage. It is wholly founded on a vague tradition of a non-historical character. The Subordinate Judge has also attached significance to the letter Ex. DD written in 1837 by the Swami of Bhandarikere Mutt to the Swami of Bhimanakattai Mutt, asking the latter to find out if there were any old accounts and documents in his possession which might be useful in connexion with certain suits relating to the land of Bhandarikere. It appears that sometime about 1705 (Ex. CC) there was partition between the two mutts of certain jewels, books, brass and copper vessels and other articles of worship and that apparently explains why the Swami of Bhandarikere Mutt who wrote Ex. DD thought that the Swami of Bhimanakattai Mutt might have some papers which would throw light in the suits re-lasing to the properties of his mutt. Nor does the conclusion of the lower Court, that Gopinath is the principal deity worshiped in the Bhandarikere Mutt while Ramadeva is the original deity worshipped in the Bhimanakattai Mutt, seem to be warranted by the evidence. There is ample evidence corraborated by the statements of witnesses on the plaintiffs' side to show that the images of Rama, Lakshmana and Sita, singly or together, form a principal object of worship in the Bhandarikere Mutt as well. There is however the undoubted fact that the grants recorded in the stone inscriptions M, N, O, P, all made in the 16th
