Sundara Battar alias Sundara Gurukkal vs Ramakrishna Naidu and others

Ramakrishnan, J.—The plaintiff in O. S. No. 55 of 1956 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed the suit in forma pauperis for declaration and possession of the plaint schedule properties. He alleged that the properties were granted as service inam in 1861 for the archaka service in the temple of Sri Visweswaraswami in the village of Tilavanur. It was enjoyed by one Sambasiva Gurukkal. After him, his brother Subramania Gurukkal enjoyed the inam and performed the archaka service. Subramania Gurukkal who was the son-in-law of the plaintiff assigned his rights in the archaka office as well as in the properties, to the plaintiff in 1902. The plaintiff was in enjoyment of the properties since then, realising the income and performing the archaka service in the temple. He had leased out the lands to defendants 2 to 15. Defendants 1 and 2 are the present trustees of the temple. The trustees in collusion with the lessees were disputing the plaintiff''s title to receive the lease amount from the suit properties. Hence the suit. The main contest was raised by the first defendant. He alleged that the suit properties were granted in inam to the deity and therefore the archaka had no title. The plaintiff''s right to be archaka was also disputed. The plaintiff was engaged as archaka of the temple on a salary of Rs. 50 and twelve kalams of paddy per year. The plaintiff began to claim title to the properties in June 1949. The plaintiff''s suit was barred under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951. So far as item 3 was concerned, the plaintiff''s suit was barred by res judicata by virtue of a prior decision in the District Munsif''s Court, Villupuram. The trial Court found that the suit lands were granted to the temple and not to the archaka for performing archaka service, it also found that the suit was barred under S. 93 read with S. 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The plea of res judicata of the defendant was negatived as the prior suit only resulted in an order returning the plaint on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with item 3 of the suit properties. In the end, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs, and the appeal is filed by the plaintiff, in forma pauperis.

Learned Counsel, who appeared for the plaintiff, urged that the suit lands were granted on service tenure to the archaka for the performance of archaka service and was not a grant to the temple. He also urged that in any event since the plaintiff had been in possession of the lands from 1902, for over the statutory period, he had perfected title by adverse possession against the temple.

In regard to the first point, an extract from the Inam Fair Register, and also inam title deeds granted in prior years are produced. Ex. A-2 deals with one item of the suit properties, dry land 84 cents in extent, which is classified as a religious endowment under Column 2 of the Inam Fair Register. Column 8 has the heading:

Description of inam--if for service, it is to be stated whether the service is continued......

Under this heading, the entry is :

For the support of the Iswarar pagoda. This pagoda is said to be in good condition and the proceeds are enjoyed by the party in Column 16.

Column 13 has the heading:

" Name of the original grantee" and the entry under it is "Iswarar''. Under Column 16 which has the heading " Name and age of the owner at the time of the inam settlement in 1861-- 62'' the entry is "Illegible ; Iswarar, Panchamadevi Gurukkal etc.

The order of the entered is "To be confirmed". In the case of the two other items of property, the entry in the Inam Fair Register, is marked as Ex. A-4. Column 2 described them as religious endownments. Column 8 contains the entry :

For the worship of Vilveswaraswami in the pagoda situated in Villianur a hamlet of the village. The pagoda is said to be in good condition and worship is regularly rendered.

In Column 13, the entry is : " Sri Visveswaraswami" and in column 18 the entry is " Sri Vilveswarswami. Worshipper : (1) Sundara Gurukkal (2) Sambasiva Gurukkal." The recommendation of the then Deputy Collector in Column 2 is : " To be confirmed and continued so long as the worship is regularly performed." The recital in the Inam Fair Register that the grant was a religious endowment or devadayam, is not conclusive on the question whether the grant is to the temple, or to the archaka burdened with service. We have to look into the entries in the other columns of the Inam Fair Register for the purpose [vide Sami Ayyangar v. Venkataramana A. I. R. 1934 Mad. 381]. The entries that the original grantee was the deity, that the grant was for the support of the pagoda, and that the grant was to be confirmed and continued as long as the worship is performed, in the temple, furnish particulars which point to the grant being in favour of the temple rather than in favour of the archaka. Column 8 specifically provides for an appropriate entry to be made in case the inam is a service inam. In Ex. A-4, the grant is clearly described as the grant for the worship in the temple, and there is no reference to a grant as service inam. In Column 8 of Ex. A-2, there is however a reference to the fact that the gurukkal mentioned in Column 16 is enjoying the proceeds. But here again, no mention of the grant being a service inam is mentioned. The grant is described in Column 8 of Ex. A-2 as one for the support of Iswarar pagoda. The Inam Commissioners in recording their orders in the Inam Fair Register took care to mention in cases where the grant was found to be a service inam, that the grant was confirmed to the party as long as he continues the performance of the service. But in the case of grants to temple, the orders of the Inam Commissioners in the Inam Fair Register take the form " To be confirmed so long as the worship is regularly performed." This distinction in the terms of the orders passed in the Inam Fair Register, has been referred to in decided cases of this High Court. For example in The President of the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments and Others Vs. Thadikonda Koteswara Rao and Others, attention is drawn to the distinction between the words " to be confirmed so long as the service is performed " and " to be confirmed to the party so long as he continues the performance of the service". The latter is held to be a personal grant, but not the former. This distinction has also been referred to in the recent decision of the Supreme Court : in Lakshminarasimhachari v. Agatheeswaraswami Varu (1960) 2 M.L.J. 61 (S.C.). The entries in the Inam Fair Register in the present case, show that the grant was to the temple, and not to the archaka burdened with an obligation to perform service. We therefore confirm the finding of the trial Court in this respect.

On the further question of the possession of the plaintiff, adverse to the temple, the following points have to be mentioned. The plaintiff is the father-in-law of Subramania Gurukkal brother of Sambasiva Gurukkal. In 1902, he obtained a usufructuary mortgage from Subramania Gurukkal of the plaint properties and this document directs the plaintiff to perform the pooja and neivedyam and other service in the temple. If the plaintiff''s claim that the land was granted in service inam is to be accepted, then it is an invalid alienation. Apart from this, assuming that the plaintiff has been enjoying the properties and performing archaka service from 1902, the other documents executed by him subsequently show that he never set up title to the properties adverse to the temple. Ex. A-8 is the lease executed by the plaintiff in 1938, in respect of some of the items in the suit properties. He has described himself while leasing out the properties as the then Dharmakartha and archaka. Ex. A-9, another lease dated 12th January, 1940, contains a similar recital. In the concluding portion of Ex. A-9, the plaintiff has also added the remark that the properties were obtained by the plaintiff in his capacity as Dharmakartha of the temple under an unregistered sale deed. When signing the document he has described himself as trustee of the temple. In his evidence, as P. W. 1, the plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that Subramania Gurukkal was the trustee and he (the plaintiff) was his clerk for doing pooja. He has no lease deeds after 1945. There was no sale deed of the properties in his favour. He could not explain the reference to a sale deed in Exs. A-8 and A-9. He has admitted that Subramania Gurukkal attested Exs. B-2 to B-7, which are lease deeds produced on the side of the defendants. It is clear, in the above circumstances, that the plaintiff considered himself as a clerk under the archaka Subramania for performing the pooja in the temple ; and even when he executed lease deeds, he described himself as trustee of the temple and never set up any title adverse to the temple. Therefore, there is no basis for supporting the plaintiff''s claim in this case.

The finding of the lower Court that the civil Court had no jurisdiction by reason of S. 93 read with S. 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, was not challenged before us at the time of the arguments in appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The appellant will pay the court fee due to the Government.