Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The respondent founds, and strongly founds, upon the state of the records of this property as for the year 1825. He maintains that there is sufficient indication from this record that the property in suit had wholly belonged, not to the temple as part of its endowments, but to Evalappa, his grandfather, as his own personal property.

16. The date of the origin of this temple is not apparently now ascertainable, but the first broad and fundamental fact appearing from the record founded upon is that in 1825 de facto such a temple did exist; secondly, that the institution was at that date managed by a Dharmakarta; and thirdly, that it was the owner of some lands. What were those lands; and in particular, did they include those in suit in the present case ? On that point the singularity of the position is that it appears to be, and that very rightly, assumed in the judgment of the Courts below, that originally the temple did own the lands, but that the state of affairs crystallized in the paimash of 1820 left it at least doubtful whether some change had not been effected under which a personal acquisition by the Dharmakartha had taken place.

17. And it is the fact, with regard to the large majority of the items composing the village lands, that the plots and portions are set out in detail in the name of Evalappa Mudaliar, without describing him as trustee, and without giving any indication contrary to that of personal ownership. It is this circumstance upon which the respondent in the appeal strongly relies.

18. It may be said of the 1825 paimash or record, taken as a whole, that it does involve certain self-contradictions which contribute to leaving the point at issue in considerable doubt.

19. It will serve no useful purpose to load this opinion with details, although all these details have been carefully considered. It may suffice to say as follows : The Paimash Jariff Taram chitta for Mandavilagam village, dated August 31, 1825, forms the Exhibit A, and its headings and general preliminary statements must be attended to. It states the "persons who were present at the Jariff," mentioning by name the Government Officer. Then follows this entry : "Alwar temple village Miras." This appears to describe in general terms the ownership by the temple of all the village miras. Then there appears this entry "Appasami Mudali and Arunachala Mudali, gumasthas of Evalappa Mudali Dharmakartha of the aforesaid temple-total, two persona." Up to this point it seems plain enough that the lands are owned by the temple, and that Evalappa is its Dharmakartha. When the specific entries begin there occur the following "remarks": "Village Miras-Sri Tirumuahi Alwar," and a little further down, "No. 1 Miras. Tirumushi Alwar Devastanom Dharmakartha Nattu Evalappa Mudali." Then still another : "Alwar mantapam tope, No. 1 Miras Tirumushi Alwar Devastanom." Up to this point the doubt as to the lands being temple lands-it being admitted that they are part of the village miras-has not arisen When these items came to be entered, the column of remarks shows "village miras," and by far the most important of the entries are those referring to the miras itself, viz., "No. 1 Miras," and one of the most important pieces of the property is a tope or grove, which is entered as punja, and in the remarks is stated to be Alwar mantapam tope. So far all is clear.

It is of course impossible at this distance of time to say exactly how it was that these properties passed from the temple into the hands of the trustee's family, and the case may undoubtedly appear to be one of suspicion. But we cannot say, at this distance of time and in view of this long enjoyment, that the title of the temple has been sufficiently established in the present suit as to the great bulk of those properties, that is to say, in respect of those properties which, in the paimash, are not entered as temple properties. Where we find in the paimash properties entered as temple properties, that is sufficient to throw the onus on to the trustee of showing how these properties ceased to belong to the temple.