Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
(1) C. Periaswami Gounder (In C. As. Nos. 648, 649 and 650 of 1960) (2) Swaminatha Andi and others (In C. A. No. 651 of 1960) (3) Sundaresa Ayyar and others (In C. A. No. 652 of 1960), Appellants
Versus
(1) Sundaresa Ayyar and others (In C.A. No. 648 of 1960) (2) Swaminatha Andi and others (In C.A. No. 649 of 1960) (3) Sundaram Ayyar and others (In C.A. No. 650 of 1960) (4) Periaswami Goundan and others (In C.A. No. 651 of 1960) (5) C. Periaswami Gounder (In C.A. No. 652 of 1960), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 648 to 652 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan Advocate, with him), for Appellant; (In C. As. Nos. 648, 649 and 650 of 1960) and for Respondents (In C. As. Nos. 651 and 652 of 1960) Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 (In C. A. No. 648 of 1960) and Appellants (In C. A. No. 652 of 1960); Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Messrs. K. Jayaram and R. Ganapathy Iyer), Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 to 11, 15, 18, 16, 19 and 21 (In C. A. No. 649 of 1960), Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 8 (In C. A. No. 650 of 1960), and Appellants (In C. A. No. 651 of 1960).
TEMPLE LANDS - GRANT - EXTENT OF INTEREST GRANTED - WHETHER MELVARAM ALONE OR BOTH MELVARAM AND KUDIVARAM - INAM REGISTER AND INAM STATEMENT - EVIDENTIARY VALUE - DOCTRINE OF LOST GRANT - APPLICABILITY - LONG ENJOYMENT BY ARCHAKAS - EFFECT - APPORTIONMENT OF LANDS BETWEEN ARCHAKAS AND TRUSTEES - JURISDICTION OF COURT IN SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The suits were filed by the trustees of three temples for the recovery of the plaint-scheduled properties from the defendants who are the archakas and the alienees from them on the ground that the said properties were the properties of the deity and that the defendants had no right therein. The defendants claimed that only melvaram in the said properties was granted to the deity and that the archakas owned the kudivaram therein and that some of the said properties were validly transferred to the alienees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the grants to the three deities comprised both the varams, namely, melvaram and kudivaram. The Court 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.
Issues: 1. Whether the inam grants made to the three temples consisted of both the varams or melvaram alone? 2. Whether the archakas were entitled to have a portion of the said properties allotted to them towards their remuneration for the services to the temples? 3. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to compel the trustees of the temples to put the archakas in possession of specified extent of property towards their remuneration.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the recitals in the inam register and the inam statement, which are of great evidentiary value, conclusively establish that both the varams were granted to the deity and that all the documents, or most of them, disclosing the conduct of the archakas would support the conclusion that both the varams were so granted to the deity. 2. The Court held that the doctrine of lost grant cannot be invoked where there is sufficient evidence and convincing proof of the nature of the grant and the persons to whom it was made. 3. The Court held that the long enjoyment by the archakas is not a peculiar feature of this case and that the authorities concerned have made suitable arrangements for remuneration in the case of other temples and that they would make a reasonable provision for the archakas in the present case also for their remuneration in accordance with law. 4. The Court held that in a suit for ejectment on proof of title, the Court has no jurisdiction to compel the trustees of the temples to put the archakas in possession of specified extent of property towards their remuneration.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals filed by the trustees and dismissed the appeals filed by the archakas.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. :
These five appeals by certificate arise out of Original Suits Nos. 183, 184 and 185 of 1945 filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, Madras State.
2. O. S. No. 183 of 1945 relites to properties claimed on behalf of Sri Chowleswaraswami temple. Periaswami Goundar and Samana Goundar, the plaintiffs in the said suit, are the trustee of the said temple. They filed the suit for the recovery of the plaint-scheduled properties from the defendants who are the archakas and the alienees from them on the ground that the said properties were the properties of the deity and that the defendants had no right therein. They also claimed mesne profits for a period of 3 years prior to the suit. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the claim of the deity to the melvaram interest in the properties but claimed that the archakas owned the kudivaram therein and that some of the said properties were validly transferred to the alienees.
3. O. S. No. 184 of 1945 was filed in the said Court by the trustees of Sri Pongali Amman temple situated in the village of Vengambur for the recovery of the properties mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint. The defendants, who are the archakas and aliences from them, inter alia, pleaded that only melvaram in the said properties was granted to the deity and that the archakas owned the kudivaram therein and they had validly alienated their interest in the said properties in favour of the aliencees.
4. O. S. No. 185 of 1945 was filed in the same Court by the trustees of Sri Varadaraja Perunal temple situated in Vengambur village. The plaintiffs sought to recover the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint from the archakas and the alienees from them on the same grounds and the defendants raised similar pleas. It is not necessary to mention other defences raised in the written statements filed in the three suit as nothing turns upon them in these appeals.
5. 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 the varams or melvaram alone.
6. The learned Subordinate Judge tried the said suits along with two othersuits 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, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
