Devadoss vs Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(SC) 1663

1998(5) Supreme 125
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Majmudar & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Devadoss (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8581 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10988 of 1997)
Decided on 9-12-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R. Sundaravaradhan, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Kalpana K. Tripathy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji, Advocates.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963-Sections 2(13)(ii)(a), 9 & 65 - Private land - Order granting ryotwari patta to respondent temple as a landholder under-Appellant claimed that he cultivated the land under orders of Collector -No document to prove appellant’s case-Documents showed the temple as pattadar and appellant as tenant-Whether by virtue of Amending Act 27/66, requirement of 3 years cultivation was dispensed with, so far as claims for ryotwari patta by temples under Section 9(2)(a) of the Act?-(Yes)-Presumption under Section 65-Land is to be presumed to be ryoti land unless it is proved to be private land by landholder-Presumption under Section 65 gets rebutted by statutory exemption mentioned in Section 9(2)(a).
       Held : In our view, the Legislature of Tamil Nadu was aware that in almost every case where a temple landholder was contending that certain land was private land and not ryoti land and where the landholder was claiming ryotwari patta under Section 9 of T.N. Act 26/1963, the tenants were invariedly raising a plea that the temple must prove for purposes of Section 9(2)(a) that the land was before the notified date, being cultivated by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, in the ordinary course of husbandry. Under Section 9(2)(a), proof of personal cultivation was required atleast for a continuous period of 3 years within a period of 12 years immediately before 1.4.1960. (Para 22)
       In our view the plain meaning of the proviso, after the amendment of 1966 is that, so far as the temples covered by the Madras H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 were concerned, the proof of personal cultivation even for 3 years within a continuous period of 12 years immediately before 1.4.1960 was not required, for purposes of grant of ryotwari patta to the temple under Section 9(2)(a). In our opinion, the tribunals below and the High Court were right in applying the Amending provisions of Act 27/1966 so far as the respondent-temple was concerned, we may add that the judgment of the Madras High Court in Shanmugnam’s case (1997(1) LW 287) in so far as it had taken the same view mentioned by us in this judgment, to that extent, is correct. (Paras 24 & 25)
       If we go by the exemption carved out in the body of Section 9(2)(a), then the said provision itself helds the temple so far as new inam estates with which we are concerned, to rebut the presumption in Section 65(1) of the Act 26/1963. In other words, while the presumption under Section 65(1) might operate against other landholders claiming ryotwari patta under Section 9(2)(a), the position so far as temples governed by the Madras H.R. & C.E. Act, 1989 are concerned, proof of personal cultivation is statutorily dispersed with, even for the period of three years mentioned in Section 9(2)(a). That is now, the statutory presumption gets rebutted. (Para 30)
       (ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Statement of objects and Reasons of an Act-To what extent Court can make use of the same. (Para 21)

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representative of one Dr. Devadoss against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Special Tribunal Appeal No. 4 of 1993 dated 21.1.1997, dismissing the appeal of the said Dr. Devadoss’s legal representative. That was an appeal preferred against the order of the Inam abolition Tribunal (Sub Court) Thanjavur in CMA No. 23 of 1985, by which the said Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer (Asst. Law Tax Officer) dated 4.5.1985 in T.8.5/EO/PKT/84 (on remand) granting ryotwari patta to the respondent temple as a landholder under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26/1963) (hereinafter called the 1963 Act).

3. The dispute relates to the 0.84 cents in S.No. 10/2 and 0.79 cents in S.No. 75, Athaloor Village, Peravoprani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

The decision of the tribunals :

4. Before the primary tribunal, the respondent temple claimed patta under Section 9 as the landholder. Dr. Devadoss (hereinafter called the appellant for convenience) claimed ryotwari patta on the basis that he was having the Kudikani or Kupivaram rights. He examined himself as PW 1 and five other witnesses as PW 2 to 6. The temple examined its accountant as RW1. The appellant claimed that he cultivated the land under orders of the Collector under the Grow More Food Scheme, spent Rs. 3000 and brought the rocky and waste land under cultivation from 1944 onwards. In his evidence, he stated that he did not know that the Record of Rights showed that the land belonged to the temple. He had not filed any document to show that he came into possession through proceedings of the Collector under the Grow More Food Campaign. Except to say he was cultivating the land, he admitted he had no document to prove Kudikani rights nor were there any muchilakas executed by the temple in his favour. He expressed ignorance of the fact that the Revenue Divisional Record described him as a ‘tenant’. He denied the suggestion that the land belonged to the temple. He admitted that in a case filed by the temple against him, the temple claimed it had iruvaram-rights. He admitted that Exs. 9 and 10 adangals for 1960, 1961 showed the temple as pattadar and himself as tenant. PW 2 to 6 supported his case, PW 4, the village accountant from 1946 to 1980 admitted that column 8 of Record of Rights showed the temple as pattadar, the land was inam and that column 8 would record who has got kudikani rights. Column 9 of Record of Rights only indicates the melwaram rights. RW 1 the present temple Accountant stated that in the Record of Rights, the temple’s name was recorded in column 8. In column 9 - relating to melwaram right - nobody’s name is mentioned. He stated that the appellant was only a cultivating tenant and it was so recorded in D.C.P. accounts of temple from 1959 to 1984, the rent being 10 kulams of paddy per year. From 1973, no rent was paid till date and demand notices were issued. The appellant even filed petitions for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Fair Rent Act during 1965 and 1981 but he withdrew the same and suddenly started claiming kudikani rights. The appellant was not a cultivating tenant under the Grow More Food Campaign.

5. On this material, the primary authority held that it was clearly established that the temple was having iruvaram rights and the appellant was only a tenant. It then referred to the exemption in favour of temple from proving self-cultivation in T.N. Act 27/1966 and said :

“Under the Act 27/66, religious institutions have been exempted from proving personal cultivation. Enjoyment of the petitioner shows enjoyment and possession of the temple”

The primary authority finally held that the temple was entitled to patta under Section 9.

6. On appeal by the appellant, the appellate Tribunal (Sub-Court) dismissed the appeal. During the hearing, it allowed an applicatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1663

Cases Referred (10)