Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The documents disclosed by the defendants show that since 1851 Nuli Peda Narasimhulu, his son, Subbarayudu, his grand- sons, Sriramulu and Narasimhulu, and his great grandson, Nuli Subba Rao, possessed and enjoyed the suit lands. Exhibit B-1 dated October 19, 1895 shows a mortgage and lease for six years by Sriramulu and Narasimhulu, Ex. B-2 dated April 7, 1902 discloses a mortgage and lease by Sriramulu, Exs. B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 show a mortgage and lease for five years by Sriramulu on March 1, 1910 and Ex. B-7 dated March 10, 1938 and Ex. B-8 dated August 19, 1942 are leases oil the suit lands for five years and eight years executed by Subba Rao. These documents and particularly Exs. 13-3, B-4 and B-5 recited that the lands were entered in the name of the deity in the village accounts of Cherukuvada and from generation to generation were in the possession and enjoyment of the family off Peda Narasimhulu who got them under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851 for purposes of Nanda Deepam (evening lighting) of the deity. It is not shown that these documents and the recitals in them were brought to the notice of the temple authori- ties. These unilateral declarations cannot affect the title of the deity. Moreover, these documents contain admissions that the lands were entered in the village accounts in the name of the deity. By a notice dated June 16, 1929, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board demanded from Nuli Subba Rao annual contribution for the expenses of the temple. By his reply dated October 25, 1929, Nuli Subba Rao denied liability for the payment of the contribution and alleged that the lands were granted to his great grandfather, Peda Narasimhulu, by Ponnuri Anandu under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, subject to the condition of supplying one-fourth seer of oil every day to the deity, and under the terms of the Sanad, the lands passed to Peda Narasimhulu and the deity is entitled to get only the oil and to no ether right. But soon thereafter on notice to Nuli Subba Rao, the Board framed the scheme dated October 26, 1931 declaring the lands to be the properties of the temple. The documents produced by the defendants do not displace the entries in the Inam Fair Register, the Inam 'B' Register and the Re- survey and Re-settlement Register, which show that the suit lands are Devadayam, the deity is the registered inamdar and the pattas were issued to the deity. We are satisfied that the deity is the owner of the lands. We reject the claim of the defendants that in 1851 either Peda Narasimhulu or Ponnuri Anandu was the owner.

We also reject the claim of the defendants that by the Sanad dated November 10, 1,851, the lands were conveyed to Peda Narasimhulu subject to the burden of supplying oil for evening lighting purposes. Had the properties been conveyed by the Sanad to Peda Narasimhulu, he and his successors would have been entered in the village accounts as the inamdars and the pattas in respect of the suit lands would have been issued to them. But all along the deity is shown as the registered inamdar and the relevant pattas were issued` to the deity and not. to Peda Narasimhulu or his successors. In spite of a notice served by the plaintiff, the, legal representatives of Nuli Subba Rao did not Produce the Sanad. We are unable to accept their explanation that they are not in possession of the Sanad. They have produced other ancient documents. A perusal of Exs. B-3 to B-7, A-9 and the written statement --,how,.; that up to the date of the filing of the written statement the Sanad was in the possession of the successors of Peda Narasimhulu. We are satisfied that the legal representatives of Nuli Subba Rao are, still in possession of the Sanad and that they have deliberately withheld it.

(2) [1869] 13 M. 1. A. 270, 275.

(3) (1929) L.R. 49 I.A. 54.

(2) [1953] S.C.R. 930.

(4) (1923) L.R. 51 I.A., 83, 96-98.

(6) (1930) I.L.R. 57 Cal. 1293 P.C. that one-fourth seer of gingili oil daily was then a reasonable rent. Subsequently, the lands were converted into wet lands, and they are now fetching a large income. In spite of the increase in land and the letting value, the temple authorities made no attempt to raise the rent of the lands or to evict the tenants. From time to time, the tenants created mortgages and leases of the suit lands for short periods. Had the origin of the tenancy been not known, we could from the facts fairly draw the inference that the tenancy was permanent. Having regard to the long lapse of time, we might even have presumed that the permanent tenancy was granted for legal necessity. But in this case, the origin of the tenancy is known. The tenancy was granted by the Sanad dated November 10, 1851. Whether or not a permanent tenancy was granted is a question of construction of the Sanad. Only the Sanad could show what interest was ranted by it. The most striking feature of this case and the thing which tilts the scales against the defendants is the non-production of this Sanad. The defendants have deliberately withheld this document. We should, therefore, make every presumption against them to their disadvantage consistent with the facts. We hold that the document, if produced, would have shown that the tenancy is not permanent. The proved facts are consistent with a lease rather than a license. The manager of the temple in the ordinary course of management had authority to grant leases of the agricultural 'lands from year to year. Considering all these facts, we hold that the Sanad granted to Peda Narasimhulu a lease of the suit lands from year to year in consideration of his rendering one-fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple.

The defendants, however, contend that the possession of Nuli Subba Rao became adverse as from October 25, 1929 when by a (1) (1921) L.R. 48 I.A. 302.

notice (Ex. A-9) of that date he asserted a hostitle title. This notice was addressed to the President, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The object of the notice was to deny the liability of Subba Rao to pay any contribution to the Board in respect of the temple. Incidentally, Subba Rao claimed title to the suit lands under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, subject only to the burden of supplying gingili oil to the temple daily. This claim was based on the Sanad and ultimately it was a question of construction of the Sanad whether it granted the right claimed by Subba Rao. We have already held that under the Sanad the grantee got a tenancy from year to year only. Moreover, after the service of this notice, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras framed a scheme in the presence of Nuli Subba Rao declaring that the suit lands belonged to the deity. No objection was raised by Nuli Subba Rao to this scheme. It is to be noticed also that the trustees of the temple were not served by Nuli Subba Rao with the notice of his claim of absolute right to the suit lands. It is not shown that since October 25, 1929 Nuli Subba Rao continued to be in possession of the suit lands on the basis of a notorious claim of a hostitle title,.