AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Palaniswami, J.—These three appeals arise out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference u/s 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. For the purpose of Madurai Neighbourhood Project, R.S. No. 161/2 measuring 2 acres 98 cents in the Village of
Tallakulam in Madurai Taluk was acquired. Rival claims were put forward as regards the compensation. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer
referred the matter u/s 30. Claimants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 contended that the land was granted in inam of both warams to the ancestor of one
Periyathambi Velar for the purpose of rendering service of supply of new pots to Kallalagar Devasthanam Temples, that Periyathambi Velar sold
away one-half of the property to the first claimant and the other half to the second claimant and that by reason of these purchases, claimants 1 and
2 were entitled to the entire compensation in equal halves. The fourth claimant Audimathiriyar claimed compensation in respect of 75 cents alleging
that he and his ancestors were in possession thereof from time immemorial. His contention was that what was granted originally was melwaram
only in favour of the ancestor of Periyathambi Velar. Kallalagar Devasthanam, the ninth claimant, contended that the inam was granted to the
holder of potter service in his capacity as holder of that service in the temples and that the descendants of the grantee had no right of alienation and
that the alienations were void and did not confer any title upon the alienees. The Devasthanam contended that the entire compensation should be
paid to it for the purpose of regranting the property under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXX of 1963).
The Court below held that the original grant was of melwaram only and the grant was not to an office pertaining to any temple. The Court below
upheld the alienations under which claimants 1 and 2 claimed title and found that claimants 1 to 8 were entitled to Kudiwaram interest in certain
proportions and that claimants 1 and 2 were entitled to melwaram interest and that compensation was divisible accordingly. Aggrieved by this
order, the first claimant has filed A.S. No. 589 of 1967, whereas the second claimant has filed A.S. No. 848 of 1967, their contention being that
they are exclusively entitled to the entire compensation in equal shares. The Executive Officer of Kallalagar Devasthanam has filed A.S. No. 8 of
1968, contending that the grant was of both warams, that the inam was inalienable and that the entire compensation should be secured for the
continuance of the service.
Neither side let in oral evidence. The parties were content to take a decision only on the basis of the documents produced by them. It was the
common contention of claimants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 that what was granted in inam consisted of both melwaram and kudiwaram in connection with
the service of supply of pots to Kallalagar Devasthanam Temples. The only claimant, who put forward the contention that the subject-matter of the
grant consisted of only melwaram, was the fourth claimant. He vaguely alleged that from time immemorial an extent of 75 cents, out of the acquired
property, was in the possession of his family. He did not specifically plead that his family had acquired title to the said extent by adverse
possession. It was not his case that both warams had been granted in inam to the service holder and that in denial of the right of the said service
holder his family enjoyed 75 cents and acquired title by adverse possession. To questions put by us, the Counsel appearing for several claimants,
except the Counsel for the Devasthanam, frankly conceded before us that the claim to share the compensation is not based upon adverse
possession, nor on the ground that kudiwaram had been granted in favour of their ancestors. Their only contention was that their ancestors were
already in possession of the land as riots that what was granted consisted of the melwaram only. The Counsel for claimants 1 and 2 contended that
as alienees from the service holder, these claimants were entitled to the entire compensation. In these circumstances, the only question that arises
for consideration, on the submission made before us, is whether the grant consisted of both warams or only of melwaram.
The said question had been answered by the Court below holding that the subject matter of the grant was only the melwaram on the basis of
certain dealings with the kudiwaram right by those in possession as if they were entitled to that right. The Court below totally failed to consider the
important documents that have a bearing upon the question as to the subject-matter of the grant, namely, whether the grant consisted of both
warams, or only melwaram. Those documents are, Exhibit B-1, which is the title deed issued by the Inam Commissioner, Exhibit B-2 which is the
certified copy of the statement given by Muthukaruppa Velar and Exhibit B-3, which is an extract from the Inam Register. The title deed Exhibit B-
1 was issued in 1863. The earliest document produced on the side of the claimants who claim kudiwaram right is of the year 1886 only, Exhibit A-
The Court below committed a serious error in observing that even prior to the date of the issue of Exhibit B-1, the kudiwaram interest had
been dealt with by riots. This clear error totally vitiated his conclusion.
No doubt, the original title deed is not produced. But we have, as already pointed out, the title deed issued by the Inam Commissioner and the
statement recorded by the Commissioner and also an extract from the Inam Register. The importance of the recitals in the Inam Register has been
emphasised by the Judicial Committee in Arunachalam Chetty v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal (1919) 37 M.L.J. 460 : AIR 1919 P.C. 62 :
ILR 43 Mad. 253 : 46 I.A. 204. It is pointed out that the Inam Commission enquiry is one made on the spot after hearing witnesses and examining
documents with regard to each property. It is also pointed out that where no other evidence is available, utmost importance should be attached to
the information set forth in the Inam Register. This view was reiterated by the Privy Council in Shankara Narayana v. Board of Commissioner, AIR
1948 PC 25 . The view of the Judicial Committee has been accepted and followed by the Supreme Court in C. Periaswami Goundan and Others
Vs. Sundaresa Iyer and Others, . in which it is pointed out :
As observed by the Judicial Committee the entries made in the said register are the result of an elaborate enquiry based upon oral evidence and on
the spot enquiry and scrutiny of available accounts and records.
In the above background, the various entries in the Inam Register extract, which is marked as Exhibit B-3, may be; examined. The first major
heading is : ""Class, extent and value of inam'''' and this is divided into seven sub-headings. In column (2) the heading is : ""General class to which the
inam belongs"". Under this column the entry is ""Devadayam"". Under column (3) particulars regarding survey number and name of field or fields
comprised in the grant etc. are required to be given. Under this column the entry is : ""Wet. One crop. Kosavansayi"". Survey numbers are also
given. Columns (4) and (5) deal with local measure in terms of acre etc. The extents are given under these columns. Column (6) requires survey
assessment, to be given, whereas column (7) requires revised or present assessment to be given. Under column (6) no entry is made. Under
column (7) details are given showing that the assessment is 12-14-2. The next major heading reads ""Description, tenure and documents in support
of the inam"". This is divided into five columns. Column (8) is important and the heading is ""Description of inam. If for service, it is to be stated
whether the service is continued. If for tanks, buildings, etc. whether they are efficiently kept up."" The information given under this column reads as
follows : ""For the service of supplying pots to the pagoda of Kallalagar in the Melur Taluk. Now rendered"". In column (9), the heading is :
Whether free of tax, i.e., Sarvadumbala, etc., or liable to quit rent, i.e., jodi, kattubadi, bodiga etc. (sic) Amount of latter to be entered"". Under
this column, the entry is ""Tax free"". In column (10), the heading is : ""Hereditary unconditional, for life only or for two or more lives"". The entry is
permanent"". No entry is found in column (11), the heading of which is ""By whom granted and in what year"". Column (12) requires information to
be given about the written instruments in support of the claim. Under this column the information given is : ""Chitra of F. 1212 and 1217. Extent as
per F. 1212 K. V. 64th. 2-4-64th. No excess"". The next major head is : ""Name and relationship of original grantee and of subsequent and present
holders--length of possession"". This again is divided into eight columns. Under column (13) what is required to be given is about the name of the
original grantee. No entry is found therein. Under Column (14), the heading is : ""Name entered in the register prepared according to Regulation
XXXI of 1802, or in the permanent settlement accounts, and relationship of persons so entered to original grantee"". Under this column, the entry is
: ""In F. 1212 and 1217. Muthukaruppan"". In column (15) the heading is : ""Name entered in the survey or in any subsequent accounts, and
relationship to predecessors. No entry is found under this column. Column (16) requires the name and age of the present owner to be given.
Column (17) requires the place of residence of the present owner. Under these two headings the entry is ""Maditc hiyam. Karuppayi. 30"". In
column (18), which requires the relationship to the original grantee, the entry is ""Grandson''s widow"". It is unnecessary to refer to the columns (19)
and (20) which are not important. Under the remarks column dealing with the Deputy Collector''s opinion and recommendation, the entry is ""To be
confirmed under Rule 3, Clause 2"". The last column deals with the decision of the Inam Commissioner. Under this column the entry is ""Confirmed"".
The point to be noted with regard to the several entries is that nowhere it is mentioned that the land was in the possession of anybody else. If the
grant was of mere melwaram only, there was no need to mention details about the lands. The details are more consistent with he grant being of
both the warams than being of more melwaram. If at the time of the Inam Commission enquiry anybody else was in possession, it is not likely that
such a fact would have been failed to be noticed.
Exhibit B-2, is a certified copy of the statement given by one Muthukaruppa Velar, said to be the brother of Karuppayee mentioned in the Inam
Register at the time of Inam Commission enquiry. In column (2) of this statement the heading is ""The name of the inamdar as entered and the name
of the enjoyer"". Under this column, the entry is ""Muthukaruppa Velan. Enjoyment Muthukaruppa Velan"". In column (7) the heading is ""Details
about the inam and terms thereof"". Under this column it is stated that the land was granted in inam for the purpose of supplying pots to Prasanna
Venkatachalapathi Temple and Alagar Temple to Muthukaruppa Velan and that the land was being enjoyed by his daughter-in-law, Karuppayee.
It is also stated that Muthukaruppa Velan, who gave the statement, was maintaining the said Karuppayee and was also her brother. It is also stated
that Muthukaruppa Velan was keeping the land in his possession and enjoying the same and maintaining Karuppayee and performing the service of
supplying pots to the temples. The foregoing entries are consistent with the entries found in the Inam Register.
Next we come to the title deed Exhibit B-1, which was issued by the Inam Commissioner. It reads as follows :
No 1316.
Title Deed Granted to Karuppayi--.
On behalf of the Governor in Council of Madras, I acknowledge your title to a devadayam or pagoda service inam situated in the village of
Tellakolam in the Taluk of Madura in the District of Madura claimed to be of acres...of dry land, and acres (Two) 2.97 of wet land and held for
the support of service of supplying pots to the pagoda of Kallalagar in that village in the Melur Taluq.
(2) This Inam is confirmed to you and your successors tax free; to be held without interference so long as the conditions of the grant are duly
fulfilled.
(Sd.) ______
Dated Coimbatore, Inam Commissioner."" 2nd October, 1863.
Taking the three documents Exhibits B-1 to B-9 together, our conclusion is that what was granted consisted of both melwaram and kudiwaram,
that is the land itself. Considering a similar extract from the Inam Register the Supreme Court in C. Periaswami Goundan and Others Vs.
Sundaresa Iyer and Others, . held that the grant consisted of both the warams. The mere fact that certain amount is mentioned as assessment in the
Inam Register does not necessarily mean that the grant was of melwaram only. The Supreme Court had to consider the effect of such an entry in
Buddu Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Konduru Venkatapayya and Others, . It is pointed out that where the question is whether the inam
comprised the land itself or only of the melwaram interest in the properties, it cannot be inferred that the inam grant comprised only of melwaram
from the fact that under column 7 in the Inam Register only the amount of assessment is set out. The Court below, as already pointed out came to
the conclusion that the grant was only of melwaram, placing reliance upon the assertions made by the persons in possession in certain documents
executed by them. We have already pointed out that the claim is not put forward on the basis that the persons in possession had acquired title by
adverse possession. The Court below has referred to certain documents like receipts issued by Periathambi Velar as if what was paid was
melwaram describing the person who paid the amount as kudiwaramdar. Such admission has also been taken into consideration in coming to the
conclusion that the grant was only of melwaram. The Counsel appearing for the claimants in possession frankly conceded that such admission
would not confer right of kudiwaram on the persons in possession, if we hold on a construction of the recitals in Exhibits B-1 to B-3 that the grant
was of both warams. In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to refer to such documents containing the so-called admissions in
detail. It is not the case of those who claim kudiwaram right that the service-holder conveyed the kudiwaram right alone in favour of their
ancestors. It is likely that the lands were leased out by the service-holder and were allowed to be in the possession of the same family from
generation to generation. But such continuous enjoyment by itself would not entitle those in possession to claim kudiwaram right. While collecting
the rent, the inamdar mistakenly described himself as melwaramdar and described the person who paid the rent as kudiwaramdar. Such a
description does not create title in favour of the persons in possession.
Claimants 1 and 2, who conceded that the subject of grant was both melwaram and kudiwaram, claimed the entire compensation for both
melwaram-and kudiwaram as alienees from the service-holder. Claimants 1 and 2 claimed to have purchased each a half share from Periathambi
Velar in the year 1951 not only the melwaram right but also the kudiwaram right. It is on this basis that they claimed the entire compensation. The
Devasthanam contended before the Court below that the alienations on which claimants 1 and 2 based their title were void and did not convey any
title, as the grantee had no right of alienation. The Court below failed to advert to this aspect. It is rightly contended on behalf of the Devasthanam
before us that the inam being a service inam, the holder for the time being is incompetent to alienate it. That a personal service inam is inalienable is
well settled. In Anjaneyalu v. Venugopal Rice Mills 43 M.L.J. 477 : ILR 45 Mad. 620 : AIR 1922 Mad. 197. it was held that a personal inam for
public service is not a property that is liable to attachment u/s 60, Civil Procedure Code. It is pointed out that where the land is personal inam for
public service, Section 6 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of such property as it is opposed to public policy and the transfer
cannot convey any title. In Ramakrishna Amma v. Venkata Subbiah 68 M.L.J. 46 : ILR 58 Mad. 389 : 40 L.W. 918 : AIR 1935 Mad. 252. it
was held that the land burdened with the performance on a service of a public nature is inalienable being opposed to public policy and that
Deshabandham inams being burdened with a service of a public nature are inalienable and cannot be sold in execution of a decree against the
inamdar. In Angadi Masumayya Vs. The Official Receiver, the question arose whether, on the adjudication of a holder of certain inam as an
insolvent, the inam land would vest in the Official Receiver. The question was answered in the negative holding that such land not only could not be
alienated but could not be transferred from the holder to the Official Receiver. In V.E. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Kalidasa Kavandan and Another,
it was held that the mortgage of a temple service inam is opposed to public policy and is, therefore, invalid. The Counsel appearing for claimants 1
and 2, namely, appellants in A. S. Nos. 529 and 848 of 1967, did not bring to our notice any authority to hold that the alienations under which
those appellants claim title are valid.
It was contended on behalf of those in possession that they would be entitled to ryotwari pattas under the provisions of the Minor Inams
Abolition Act, 1963, and that if such a patta is obtained, the holder of the patta would be entitled to the entire compensation. We do not accept
this contention. No doubt, under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, persons satisfying certain conditions with regard to kudiwaram in an inam are
entitled to ryotwari patta. Under that Act. minor inams are abolished and all the lands in such inams have vested in the Government. But in this
case, notwithstanding such vesting, the Government have invoked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis that the lands do not
belong to the Government but belong to others. Therefore, the provisions of that Act should be applied in ascertaining the interests of the persons
entitled to the compensation. We may also point out that the question of obtaining patta in recognition of kudiwaram right does not arise in view of
our finding that the inam was of both warams.
Though the inam was granted for the performance of the service in the temples, that grant was not in favour of the Devasthanam. It was a
personal grant for the performance of service in the temples and was not in favour of the Devasthanam. But the Devasthanam is entitled to see that
the compensation amount is invested in such a way that adequate return is obtained for payment to the person doing the service so long as the
service is continued to be performed. To that limited extent, the Devasthanam is succeed, even though it is not entitled to claim the compensation
for itself.
In the result, A. S. Nos. 589 and 848 of 1967 are dismissed. A. S. No. 8 of 1968 is allowed holding that the entire compensation amount
should be invested by the Court below u/s 32 (1), of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Executive Officer of the Devasthanam is given liberty to
move the Court below to invest the amount in a suitable way. The parties will bear their respective costs in all the appeals.