Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether items 1 to 5 of the plaint A Schedule were granted in favour of the temple as contended on behalf of the plaintiff or in favour of the ancestors of the Archakas burdened with service as contended by the defendants. This question turns upon the construction of the various entries and recitals in the Inam Fair Register Ex. A. 2 and the Title Deed Ex B. 10 granted at the time of the Inam Commission Enquiry. Column 1 relating to the class of inam shows that it is Devadayam. It is now settled law that this entry by itself is not conclusive and that it merely signifies that it is a religious grant. Columns 3 to 5 relating to the extent of the inam show that the excess which stood over for 50 years and the excess extent which was found for a period of another 30 years was noted and shown as included in the total extent of the grant. Column 8 shows that it is Devadayam for the Archakatwam service or rendering daily worship to the Akhandam or maintaining lamp, Column 10 shows that it is hereditary. In Column 11, referring to the name of the grantor. it is stated that the name of the grantor is unknown. From the entries in Column 12, we find that the original sanad has not been placed before the Inam Commissioner. In Column 13, the name of the grantee is shown as Sri Vallabharajaswamy Varu enjoyed by Archakulu Column 14 shows that the name of Swamy Varu is noted in the Register of permanent settlement. Column 15 shows that the name of Swamy Varu is entered in the survey and village accounts. Under Column 16, the present holder is described as Divi Vallabhacharyulu. Under Columns 19 and 20, the names of the heirs of the original Archakas are set out. Column 21 sets out the opinion and the recommendations of the Deputy Collector which are in the following terms:

On the other hand, Sri Venkataramasastry on behalf of the defendants -Archakas contended that the most crucial document for consideration is the title deed read in the light of the recommendations contained in the Inam Fair Register and that the entries in the other revenue accounts such as settlement registers and adangal registers are not conclusive on the question. As already pointed out above. the recommendations of the Inam Commissioner in Column 21 of Ex. A. 2 clearly show that the Inam is to be confirmed to the persons rendering Archakatwam service and Akhandam in the temple. The argument of the appellants learned counsel is that column 22 which refers to the confirmation of the grant so long as service is efficiently kept up does not mention the name of the service holder as the person in whose favour the grant has to be confirmed and that it is therefore indicative of the grant being confirmed in the name of the Deity. But this contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear recitals in column 21 of Ex. A. 2 which refer to the confirmation in favour of the persons doing service. The recitals in Ex B. 10 the title deed, are so clear that there is no room for controversy as it is specifically recited that the title of Divi Vallabhacharyulu is acknowledged and that it is confirmed to him and his successors. This recital is most clinching on the question and does not lend support to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant it is given to the Archaka as a de facto trustee of the temple. The reference to Devadayam or pagoda Inam merely refers to the general nature of the inam and service associated with the pagoda. We also find from the title deed that the entire extent including the extent found upto the date of the inams enquiry has been confirmed in the name of the Archakas which would not have been the case if the original grant were really in favour of the Deity.
5. In Adinarayana v. Appan Srirangachariar, AIR 1941 Mad 217 it was held that the documentary and oral evidence relating to a period subsequent to the grant are not likely to be of much use in ascertaining the nature of the original grant. We therefore hold that it is the inam title deed which prevails over any other revenue accounts as it is the source of title.
6. On the other hand, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastri the learned counsel for the respondents cited a number of cases in which it has been uniformly held that though inam is described as Pagoda inam, it is a personal inam burdened with service when the title deed is granted in favour of a person and that in such a case, the Deity is not entitled to recover possession from the service holders. In Sriranga Chariar v. Pranatharthihara Chariar 30 Ind Cas 74: (AIR 1916 Mad 331) where the inam title deed recited that the inam is a Devadayam or pagoda service inam "for the support of the pagoda called service of Acharyapurusha in the said temple", it was held that the words 'support of pagoda" do not make very good sense and were probably part of the common form drawn up for the confirmation of devadayam inams and that the grant was really to certain named persons for the performance of service of Acharyapurusha in the temple and that no part of it was intended for the benefit of the temple. In Matte Sarayya v. Vepparathi Vydyanatham ,27 Mad LJ 57; (AIR 1915 Mad 626) it was held that where the inam is one granted by the Government to a person doing service in the temple authorities, the latter cannot intervene to prevent alienation though the Government might. In Tangirala Chirnjivi v. Raja Manikya Rao, 27 Mad LJ 179: (AIR 1915 Mad 505 (1) it was held, construing the inam title deed, that the trustees had no power to resume an inam granted to certain Vritikars of the temple but was granted to the temple but was granted to the Vritikars themselves conditional on their performing the service by the Zamindar and was confirmed by the Government. In Seshadu Reddi v. Subrahmania Aiyar, AIR 19123 Mad 163 in dealing with item 2 of the suit properties, it was held that though the title deed described the inam as Devadayam or pagoda inam still, on a consideration of all the circumstances, it was held, that the grant was of an inam to be held by the individual and his heirs burdened with the trust of doing the service for the temple and that in such a case any surplus income left after the performance of the services accrues to the benefit of the individuals and that they need not account to the temple. In Subramania v. Kailasanath AIR 1934 Mad 258 (2) construing a title deed which was confirmed to the individual and his successors so long as the conditions of the grant are fulfilled, it was held that the mere use of the word Devadayam is not decisive of the question, that it merely indicates that the ultimate purpose is religious and following the ruling in 30 Ind Cas 74 (AIR 1916 Mad 331), it was held that the grant was to the individual burdened with the performance of service and that consequently the trustee of the temple had no right to recover the inam from the holders thereof.
7. The appellant's learned counsel also pointed out that the trustees of the temple in the instant case never showed the suit properties as belonging to the Deity in the property register kept by the trustees under the provisions of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. On a consideration of the documentary evidence and the principles laid down in the above decisions, the following conclusions are deduced Though the inam is described as Devadayam ,it is not conclusive of the fact that it was granted to the Deity but it merely indicates that it is of a religious purpose. Unless the grant is made in favour of the Deity or the Manager for the time being, as representing the temple, it cannot be considered as a grant to the Deity. The mere fact that column 22 of the Inam Fair Register does not mention the name of the individual in whose favour the inam is to be confirmed does not conclude the matter in view of the fact that column 21 of the Inam Fair Register contains a clear recommendation that the inam should be confirmed to an individual. The recommendations contained in the Inam Fair Register have to be read along with the recitals in the inam title deed which was issued as a result of the inam proceedings. The description of the inam as Devadayam Pagoda inam in the title deed is not indicative of the fact that it was granted to the Deity. It should be construed in the same manner as the word "Devadayam" occurring in the inam fair Register is construed, namely that it is only for a religious purpose. The recital in the inam title deed that it is granted "to you and your successors" so long as the service is performed places the matter beyond any doubt in arriving at the conclusion that the grant is one to an individual burdened with service. For these reasons, we are of opinion agreeing with the court below that items 1 to 5 of the A Schedule belong to the defendants burdened with service and that the plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recovery of possession.