Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The main issue in O.S. No. 183 of 1945, O.S. No. 184 of 1945 and O.S. No. 185 of 1945 was whether the inam grants made to the three temples consisted of both varams or melvaram alone.

The learned Subordinate Judge tried the said suits along with two other suits and delivered a common judgment therein. On the said issue he held in all the three suits that the grants to the three deities comprised both the varams. He further held that the alienations made by the archakas prior to May 16, 1931, were binding on the trustees of the respective temples and that the alienations made subsequent to that date were liable to be set aside. In the result the learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree in each of the suits for possession of the plaint-schedule properties except those covered by the alienations effected before May 16, 1931. He also decreed mesne profits to the plaintiffs for a period of 3 years prior to the suits and also subsequent profits from the date of the suits to the date of delivery of possession at the rate fixed by him. The defendants in the said suits preferred appeals to the High Court of Madras, being Appeals Nos. 259, 260 and 385 of 1947. The said appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the said High Court, consisting of Satyanarayana Rao and Rajagopalan, JJ. The High Court agreed with the trial court on the finding relating to the nature of the grants to the temples, that is to say it held that the grants to the temples comprised both the varams, namely, melvaram and kudivaram. The learned Judges, for the first time, though there was no pleading, no issue and no contention in the trial Court, held that the archakas were entitled to have a portion of the said properties allotted to them towards their remuneration for the services to the temples and gave a decree directing the division of the said properties into two halves and putting the archakas in possession of one half. They did not disturb the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the alienations, that is they maintained the alienations made before May 16, 1931.

interest in the property that was given to the deity. WaS it only the Melvaram in the said property that was granted to the deity or was it that both the varams therein were granted to the deity. Now let us give a close look to the recitals under the various columns in Ex. P-3. The first major head is "class, extent and value of inam". The said major head is divided into 7 sub-heads. in col. 2 under the sub-head "General class to which the inam belongs", the entry is "religious". In col. 3 under the head "the survey number and the name of the field or fields comprised in the grant-dry, wet or garden", the particulars of the lands are given. This entry shows that except a small extent which is a garden the rest is dry land. These details are more consistent with the grant being of both the varams than being of mere melvaram. If it is of melvaram alone, the quality of the field is quite irrelevant. Sub-heads 4, 5 and 6 show that the extent is about 18 acres and 99 cents and the assessment is Rs. 24-14.-5. These recitals leave the impression that the lane, was a dry land bearing a small assessment of Rs. 24-14-5 and the, income therefrom could not have been appreciable in those days. The second main head is "description, tenure and documents in support of the inam". The entries under the various columns under this head establish that the dry lands bearing an assessment of Rs. 24-14-5 described in cols. 3. 4, 5 and 6 were granted as Devadayam to the deity Pongali Amman permanently by Madurayar Paligar of Midura. The of the grant is not known; but even in the accounts of 1209 F. the name of the deity was entered the grantee . The third major head is "name and relationship of the original grantee and of subsequent and present heirs-length of possession". In Col. 13 and 15 the, name of the deity alone is given. In Col. 16 under the heading "name and age" and in Col. 17 under the heading "place of residence" only the name of the deity is given. Below the name of the deity the name of the Pujari "Pujari Muttandi, age 45" is given. In Cols. 18 and 1 9 under the heading "relation to orginal grantee or subsequent registered holders" and "surviving heirs of the present incumbent" no entry is made. Obviously no entries are made under these sub-heads, as the deity cannot have relations. The mention of Pujari Muttandi in the context of other entries indicates that he was in charge of the temple. If his name was mentioned because he had some interest in the land the other suitable entries in regard to his relations would have been made under the relevant sub- heads. Indeed it is not the case of the archakas that they have some interest in the melvaram. If the document was concerned only with the melvaram interest, strictly there was no place for the archaka in the document, for he had no interest therein. His name was mentioned only as he was the person who was in de facto management of the properties of the deity. In Col. 21 under the heading "Deputy Collector's opinion and recommendation", the entry is "To be confirmed permanently to the Pagoda so long as it is well kept up, subject to the existing jodi of Rs. 3-1-7". Under Col. 22 the inam is confirmed to the Pagoda. A reasonable interpretation of the recitals in this document leads to the only conclusion that the Inam Commissioner was dealing with the entire interest in the land, the particulars whereof were given therein. There is no evidence that at the time the grant was made the archakas or any others were kudivaramdars. But it is said that Ex. P-2, the inam statement, filed by the then archakas would establish that what was -ranted was only the melvaram. There, in Col. 2 under the head "Name of the inamdar entered in dowle and names of the present enjoyer" the following entry is found:

"But when the income accruing from the lands came to be considerable and the archakas, by reason of old habits and following their fore- fathers, claimed the lands and surplus profits therefrom to be their own, it was only natural that the worshippers should take steps to secure the surplus income for the institutions."

These observations are very apposite and they clearly describe the circumstances under which the archakas of the temples were allowed to be in possession of the temple lands. If that was the situation under which the archakas came into possession of the lands, they were certainly in the position of de facto trustees and they could not by mortgaging or otherwise alienating the properties claim any rights in derogation of the title of the deity. Indeed the documents on which the learned counsel relied contain clear and unambiguous admission on the part of the archakas that the land itself was the property of the deity. Exs. P-12, P-13, P-14 and P-15 are copies of mortgages executed by the archakas. Under these documents the land in their possession was mortgaged and it was described as paditharam Manyam. They also disclosed hat the paditharam paddy directed to be paid to the temple was more than the kist payable thereon to the Government. In the prior proceedings i.e., applications preferred by the archakas for declaring the temples as excepted ones, there was no claim that the melvaram alone was granted to the deity. In other proceedings the archakas claimed that the lands were service inams, but they did not come forward with the present plea that melvaram only was granted to the deity. Further, pattas for the suit lands were transferred without any objection of the archakas in the name of the deities in 1939 and the archakas also paid contribution to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board on tile basis that both the varams belonged to the deity. The conduct of the archakas, therefore, is consistent with the recitals in the inam register, namely, that what was granted to the deity was the land i.e., both the varams, and that they had been put in possession and enjoyment of the said land in their capacity as archakas and de facto trustees. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon an order made by A.R.C. Westlake, Collector of Coimbatore, on April 14, 1941, wherein he held that only melvaram was granted to the deity. That order came to be made under the following circumstances. The trustees appointed by the Coimbatore District Temple Committee filed an application before the Revenue Division Officer under s. 44-B11(a) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1934, for a declaration that the alienations of portions of inam land attached to the temple were null and void and for resumption and regrant of the same to the deity. One of the issues in the application was whether the inam comprised melvaram or both melvaram and Kudivaram. The Revenue -Division Officer held that the inam comprised both the varams. On appeal, the Collector came to the contrary conclusion. But a perusal of the order shows that his conclusion was based upon pure surmises. The Collector did not refer to any document or evidence for his conclusion. The trustees filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for a declaration that the inam grant in favour of the plaint temple comprised both the varams The learned Subordinate Judge held that s. 44-B of the Act had no application as the grant was to the deity and was not a service inam. The result of this litigation was that there was no final decision on the question whether the grant was of both the varams or only of the melvaram. These proceedings cannot, therefore, be of any evidentiary value in this case. On a consideration of the entire evidence we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the grant to the deity comprised both the varams in the suit lands.

Now coming to the appeals relating to chowleswara swami temple, the factual and legal position is exactly the same as in the case of Pongaliamman temple Ex. P-2 is the statement made before the Inam Commissioner by the then archaka and Ex. P-3 is the extract from the Inam register. Under the relevant entries in the inam register, survey numbers, extent, quality and the assessment of the subject- matter of the grant are given. The land is described as Devadayam and is stated to have been granted for the support of the pagoda of Chowleswaraswami. The nature of the grant is described as permanent. The date of the grant is not known. The grantor's name is given as Maduraiyar Paligar of Madura. The name of the original grantee is given as Chowleswaraswami. The grant of the land described earlier is confirmed permanently to the pagoda as long as it is well kept subject to the existing jodi of Rs. 24-8-2. The only mention of archaka is in col. 17 under the head "Particulars regarding present owner" and the entry thereunder is "Chowleswaraswami, stanika Muttaiyan". The other columns where the relationship of the present owner with the previous owners is expected to be recorded are left blank for the obvious reason that the said columns are irrelevant in the case of a deity. The archaka's name in addition to the deity is mentioned as he was in possession of the land in his capacity as de facto trustee. The deity must necessarily have to be represented by somebody and that he can only be the stanika who was managing the temple and its properties. The relevant entries in the inam register do not countenance any contention that the melvaram interest only in the land was granted and that was confirmed to the deity. If the melvaram was granted or confirmed, the recitals would have been different. The corresponding inam statement is Ex. P-2. The entries are practically similar to those found in Ex. P-2 relating to Pongaliamman temple with some slight variations. Col. 2 makes a clear distinction between ownership of the land and enjoyment. The owner is shown as Chowleswaraswami and the "present" enjoyer is shown as Chowleswaraswami's. stanika. The nature of the enjoyment is described in col. 2 thus: