Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The question of title has to be answered primarily on an interpretation of two documents, viz., the Inam Fair Register extract (Ex A-12) and the Inam Title Deed No.2793 (ex. A-1). The relevant information furnished in Ex. A-12 including the columns under which the various information appears is extracted.

Ex A-1 which is the title deed No. 2793 reads:

"Granted to the Manager for the time being of the Pagoda of Anjaneyaswami.

1. On behalf of the Governor in Counsil of Madras, I acknowledge your title to a Devadayam or Pagoda Inam situated in the village of Nandikotkur in the Taluk of Nandikotkur in the district of Kurnool claimed to be of acres (Thirty one) 31 -12 dry land and held for the support of the above pagoda in that village.

In the case on had, the inam title deed is in favour of the Manager for the time being, as representing the temple. The entries in the Inam Fiar Register Cannot, therefore, be construed as indication any grant made to the archakas.

13. We now proceed to examine the entries made in the Inam Fair Register and see whether any of those entries support the title of the archakas to the property. Col. 2 describes the general class of the inam as "personal". Col. 8 mentioned that the inam was granted for the support of the worshipper of the pagada. In Venkayya v. Sriramamurthy (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 53). A division Bench of this Court had considered the meaning to be given to the terms "granted for rendering service such as archaka etc., to the deity" and "devadayam service Inam granted for the offering and lamp-lighting service rendered property" which appeared in a Devadayam account prepared by the temple. IT was held that such recitals cannot form the basis of any view that the grant was for the performance of the archakatvam service. They explain only the objects of the grant. They are general purposes and only mean they were endowed for the support of the temple. We have earlier given reasons why the name of Nambi Ramanna should be read as falling under Col. 14. If Nambi Ramanna was found to be in possession at the time the register was prepared in accordance with Regulation 31 of 1802 or in the permanent settlement account, that cannot, by itself, be relied upon as establishing that Nambi Ramanna was in possession in his own right. He could have been in his own right. He could have been in possession as the worshipper during the time those registers were prepared. When we come to Cols. 16 and 17, the name of Nambi Venkataramudu appear only as a worshipper of Nadikotkur Anjaneyaswami and its was Anjaneyaswami's name that was entered in the survey accounts. As held in Venkayya v. Srirama Murthy (supra) "such mention of the name of archaka was in possession of the inam and enjoying the same ................. It is likely that the archakas were in possession of the lands on behalf of the temple and were appropriating the income therefore to themselves and rendering service." It is evident that at the time of the inquiry there were no trustees to the temple and archakas were in charge of the temple and this explains the entry under Col. 16. The only entry that can, therefore, be said to be in favour of the archakas is that the general class of the inam was described as "personal" . But this entry has to be read along with the description of the inam as Devadayam or Pagoda Inam in the title deed. The description of the Inam as Devadayam or Pagoda Inam has to be given preference over the classification of the inam as "personal" shown in the Inam Fair Registers.

14. It will be difficult indeed to find a precedent which has considered a slight discrepancy such as this in the entries made in the Inam Fair Register and in the Inam title Deed. We have examined in detail the cases relied upon by Mr. Kodandaramayya where the entries were held to support the claim made by archakas. In Tirumalai Tirupati Kovil Kandadai Sriranga Chariar v. Pranatharthihara Chariar (30 Ind Cas 74): (AIR 1916 Mad 331) the inam was confirmed to the defendants; family at the time of the inam settlement. The inam Registers showed that they had been granted for service as Acharyapursha in the Tirumalai Tirupati Devastanam so long as the service should be rendered, and the title deed acknowledges the title of the grantee to a devadayam or pagoda inam service "for the support of the pagoda called service of Acharyapurusha in the said temple".

17. In Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras the inam was granted in ancient times by the Rulers and they were held for the performance of puja in Sri Meenakshi Sundarswaral Devasthanam, Madurai. The Inam Fair Register did not mention the name of the original grantee which it would have if the grant was personal. The names of the two Bhattars are entered but as Sthanikams of Pagoda Meenakshi Sundareshwaral and the inam is described as Devadayam for the archkal service, that is to say, of puja parchakram in the temple and its is stated that the Inam Commissioner confirmed the inam. The Supreme Court relied upon the circumstance that if would have been shown as ''Brahmadayam' and 'hereditary'. In Sri Vallabharanaswami Varu of Swarna v. Deevi Hanumacharyulu (supra) the Inam Fair register Extract described the inam as Devadayam and the name of the grantee was shown as Sri Vallabharajaswami Varu enjoyed by archakulu. The recommendation of the Deputy Collector is that the inam be confirmed to persons rendering archakam and akhandam service to the temple for the time being under Rules 3 and 27. The final decision of the Inam Commissioner was that the inam is confirmed so long as the service of the Pagoda is efficiently kept up. The inam title deed was, however, granted to Deevi Banumacharyulu and it was the said Vallabhacharylu's title that was acknwoledgmed by the Governor-in-Council of Madras. It is thus to be seen that in all these cases cited by Mr. Kodandaramayya, there is definite material establishing the title of the service-holders. Mr. Kodandaramayya cannot, therefore rely on these decisions in support of his submission that the grant in this case was a service grant made in favour of the archakas.