AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 195 wordsThe lands sued for are ryotwari lands for which the pattah stands in the name of a temple. The defendants set up occupancy right Reliance is
placed on Exhibits Nos. IV, VI, I, II, and VII in sup- port of the right. The temple was at the time under the management of Government under
Regulation VII of 1807. The documents re- late to the settlement of the assessment and of the swamibogam due to the temple. There are such
Words as ""permanent"", ""you and your heirs"" used in their documents in connection with their holding. Having regard to the history of the Revenue
Settlement of this District, we cannot regard these terms as conferring a permanent right. The Privy Council has held, in Mayandi Chettiyar v.
chockalingam Pillay 27 Ma. 291 : 31 I.A. 83 : 14 M.L.J. 200 : 8 C.W.N. 545, that it is not competent to the trustee of a temple, in the absence of
special circumstances, to grant a permanent lease of temple property. We think the decision of the District Judge is right and dismiss the second
appeal with costs.
The memorandzum of objections is dismissed with costs.