AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bakthavatsalam, J.—S.T.A. Nos. 313 to 321 of 1978 arise put of a common order passed by the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam in
C.M.A. Nos. 117 to 124 of 1976 rejecting the claim of the appellants for patta under Act 30/63. S.T.A. No. 3 of 1980 arises out of the order of
the very same Tribunal in C.M.A. No. 51 of 1974 rejecting the claim of the appellants for patta under Act. 30/63. The facts leading to S.T.A.
Nos. 314 to 321 of 1978 are as follows: In a suo motu enquiry instituted under the provisions of Act 30/63 the then Settlement Tahsildar,
Arantangi passed orders allowing patta in respect of certain lands in favour of the respondent-institution Sri. Vedaranyeswaraswami Temple,
Vedaranyam by his order dated 28.12.1970. Aggrieved by the above decision the objections sought the grant of patta in favour of them as against
the temple on the ground that they had acquired occupancy rights in the lands by virtue of several sale deeds and preferred appeals, under Inam
Abolition Tribunal Act. The Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam remitted the case to the Special Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. On remand, the
Special Tahsildar passed the orders holding that the respondent/Devasthanam is entitled to patta under S.8(2)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Minor Inam
Abolition Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Act"") with regard to Survey Nos. 21/7, 21/8, 21/10, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 21/11, 21/12 pt. 31/3
pt. 123/7A, 164/2, 80/1, 112/1 pt. 112/1 pt. 112/1 pt. 112/1 pt. 112/1 pt. 22/8 pt. 22/2 pt. 31/3, 21/7 pt. and 32/8. The settlement Tahsildar has
vested the building in S. No. 21/8 and 21/10 on the owner of the building Anantharajayyan Mudaliar and buildings in S. No. 21/1, 21/2 and 21/3
in Swasthik Tobacco Company under S.13(1) of the Act. Against this order, each of the claimants preferred appeals to the Inam Abolition
Tribunal which are rejected by the Tribunal, thereby affirming the order of the Special Tahsildar except the buildings in S. Nos. 21/8, 21/10, 21/1,
21/3 and 21/3.
The lands which were comprised in Devadayam minor inam granted in favour of Vedaranyeswaraswami temple, Vedaranyam is governed by
title deed Number 746 in Agasthiampalli village. E.B.1, the extract from the Inam Register does not show anything about the original grant. But it
shows that it is an inam in favour of the respondent/temple and the owner has been shown as Adhinam Thillai alias Kanda Pandaram. It is further
stated that it was approved by inam commissioner and it was for the support of pagoda. The entries in the Register would show that it was
devadayam grant and it is tax free. The grant is also shown as permanent grant.
The learned counsel for the appellants raises the following contentions:
That they are entitled to patta under S.8(1) of the Act and the Tribunal has erred in holding that S.44 will be applicable to the facts of this case.
That the grant of Iijara patta would confirm that the appellants have got kudiwaram interest and that the word ""Sarvamanyam"" will mean only
tax-free land.
That the Tribunal has failed to see that the temple has got only Melvaram interest.
That the patta Iijira would confirm that they have kudiwaram interest and that the temple is not the owner of kudiwaram.
That the appellants have kudikarni right which is the sole right and hence the grant for the temple is only Melwaram.
That the temple has brought the patta lands in Court auction in prior litigation and various dealings between various purchasers were recognized
by the respondent/Devasthanam.
In the affidavit filed in M.P. No. 2044 of 1968 before this Court by Vedaranyaswami Devasthanam which is marked as Ex.P.23, it is mentioned
that the Devasthanam was collecting only the Melwarams all those years. It has to De stated that Ex.P.23 is an affidavit filed by the
respondent/Devasthanam. The learned counsel further referred to Ex.P.18 to P.24, P.43 to P.52 and P.96 to P.125 and various other documents
to prove that the lands were dealt with by the appellants and the presumption under Act 44 is rebutted on the facts of this case.
Learned counsel for appellants refers to Ex.P.6. The recitals of Ex.P.6 in paragraph 1 reads as follows:
Learned counsel refers to the unreported decision of the Divisional Bench of this Court in S.T.A. Nos. 88 to 92 of 1979 and 51 of 1981 to
which one of us is a party and contends that the facts of the present case are similar to one considered in the unreported decision and as such the
claim of the respondent/Devasthanam for patta cannot be sustained.
The learned counsel contends that Ex.P.6 shows that the temple has got only Melwaram. Learned counsel refers to S.6-A of the Estate Lands
Act which reads as follows:
Powers of Control of the Board of Revenue:
The Board of Revenue shall have power-
(a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act
(b) to issue instructions for the guidance of Settlement Officers and Assistant Settlement Officers.
(c) to cancel or revise, within such period as may be prescribed, any of the orders, acts or of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement
Officers other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal.
The learned counsel refers to the decisions in AIR 1929 115 (Privy Council) Lakshmanna v. Venkateswarlu 1949 (II) : M.L.J. P.C. 500 = 62
L.W. 684 (P.C.) Smt. Padmini Kunwar Ju Sahiba Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh (Now Madhya Pradesh), and contends that the Tribunal has
made serious error in granting patta to the respondent/Devasthanam in the face of the overwhelming documentary evidence in this case which
shows that the temple is entitled only to Melwaram.
Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in S.T.A. No. 3/1980 refers to the decision in AIR 1949 278 (Privy
Council) , and contends that the term Ijira used is irrelevant so far as the facts of this case are concerned, he further contends that the ijira is not a
patta and he relies upon the decision in Krishnaswami Pillai v. Varadaraja Ayyangar, ILR 5 Mad. 345 ...(sic): Mr. Ramamoorthy also contends
that the ratio of the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in S.T.A. Nos. 88 to 92 of 1979 and 51 of 1981, to which one of us is
a party, is to be applied to the facts of this case also.
On the other hand, Mr. V. Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Devasthanam contends that the fact that he was having
Melwaram right will not conclude the question. He contends from the recitals of Column. 7 of Ex.P.1 and it has to be concluded that both warams
are granted to the temple. The learned counsel further contends that there is no evidence of transfer of interest from Devasthanam to the tenants.
He relies upon the decisions in Satyanarayana v. Venkatapayya AIR 1953 S.C. 196 = (1953) 66 L.W. 536, C. Periaswami Goundan and Others
Vs. Sundaresa Iyer and Others, Thiru Lakshmi Ammal v. Special Tahsildar 1973 (II) M.L.T. 317 = 86 L.W. 613 and M. E. Muthirula Mudaliar
Vs. M. E. Nataraja Mudaliar and Others, to arrive at the conclusion that the temple is entitled to both the warams and that the Tribunal''s order is
perfectly in order and the order should not be interfered in any manner. He refers to the decision in Vasantha C. v. Pandian 92 LW 141 also.
Mr. V. Krishnan, learned counsel for respondent/Devasthanam contends that according to Ex.P.1 Ryotwari Patta means only kudiwaram patta
and nothing more. He cited the decision in Smt. Padmini Kunwar Ju Sahiba Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh (Now Madhya Pradesh), in which their
Lordships observed as follows: (at p.1305)
Now the ordinary meaning of the word ''Ijara'' from which the word ''Ijarcdar'' is derived is a lease or farm of land revenue or other proprietary
right as distinguished from a patta or lease of land for cultivation, though sometimes it is used to indicate just a lease of land of any kind.
How the term Ijara Patta has to be construed is decided in the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in S.T.A. Nos. 88 to 92 of
1979 and 51 of 1981, to which one of us is a party, as follows:
Ijara patta as evidenced by Ex.P.6 is also of immense value, because unless the occupant had kudiwaram right, we are un able to see as to how
such ijara patta came to be issued by the temple. Therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the respondents that the issue of Ijara patta will
be of no use.
Ex.P.4 dated 18.1.1897 and Ex.P.5, dated 31.3.1900 are saledeeds which referred as follows:
Various sale deeds and settlement deeds filed by the appellants in this case clearly shows that they were dealing with the property and it is not as if
the temple has got both the warams in the lands.
In the decision in Buddu Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Konduru Venkatapayya and Others, their Lordships held as follows: (at p.197)
...No inference that the Inam grant comprised only melwaram rights can be inferred from the fact that under column 7 only the amount of
assessment is set out...
We are of the view that the facts of this case are entirely different. We are not deciding at this stage only on the ground with regard to the entries in
column 7. In the decision in Thirulakshmi Ammal and Executive Officer Vs. The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Project
and Others, it has been clearly held that the question has to be decided upon the evidence of each case and their Lordships observed as follows :
It is settled law that there is no presumption either that the grant was of Melwaram only or of both warams. The question as to the subject of grant
has to be decided upon the evidence in each case.
In that case, the Division Bench observed as follows: (at P.322)
It is not the case of the persons in possession that they have become entitled to the kudiwaram right either by custom or by any grant from the
original guarantee.
On the facts of this case we have already held that Ex.P.6 clearly grants the kudiwaram right in favour of the appellants. The recitals of a similar
document has been construed by the Division Bench in which one of us a party in S.T.A. Nos. 88 to 92 of 1979 and 51 of 1981. In these
circumstances and in view of the clear pronouncement of this Court with regard to a similar grant construing a similar document like Ex.P.6 in this
case, we do not think it is necessary to do as the other points raised by the learned counsel for Devasthanam on the facts and circumstances of this
case. The decisions cited and referred to by Mr. V. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the respondent/Devasthanam, do not alter our conclusion or
there is any necessity to reconsider the decision already rendered by the Division Bench in S.T.A. Nos. 88 to 92 of 1979 and 51 of 1981, to
which one of us is a party.
Considering the overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the appellants in this case we hold that the presumption under S.44 of the
Act has been fully rebutted.
With regard to facts of S.T.A. No. 3/1980 the appellants filed sale deeds from the year 1883 to 1961 showing that the kudikani rights have
been dealt with by persons who had been personally cultivating the lands. R.7 to R.21 are the sale deeds, and pattas were issued by Devasthanam
to ryots recognised by the transfers made. We find that the Devasthanam recognised the transfers in respect of kudikani rights and we are satisfied
with the principles laid down in the decision in AIR 1949 278 (Privy Council) : Inam Fair Register has been filed as Ex.B.1 in this case and it will
show that the grant is a Devadayam inam grant for Sri Varatharaja Perumal at Theppathurai. The original title deed has not been produced in that
case. The oral evidence of Karnam Singaravelu has been accepted in that case to the effect that what was granted to the temple is both warams.
In our view, the Tribunal has not carefully considered the documents produced before it. We feel that it is necessary that so far as S.T.A. No.
3/1980 is concerned, it has to be remanded for fresh consideration applying the dictum of this Court in the unreported decision of the Division
Bench in S.T.A. Nos. 88 to 92 of 1979 and 50 of 1981.
In the result, S.T.A. Nos. 314, 315, 316, 317, 319 and 321 of 1978 stand allowed. As regards S.T.A. Nos. 313, 318 and 330 of 1978 are
dismissed since these cases relate to grant of patta for buildings and the appeals are dismissed on the ground as the appeals are not maintainable.
So far as S.T.A. No. 3 of 1980 is concerned, it stands allowed and remanded for fresh consideration. However, there will be no order as to costs
in all appeals.