Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : In village Vanduyur of Madurai Taluk there are two blocks which bear the names Malapappapathu and Keelpappathu. The former is 28.90 acres and bears Survey No. 45 (the old Survey No. was 33 and the area 28-75 acres). The extent of the area in kanies is 21-9. The other block is Survey No. 78, area 20.88 acres (the old Survey No. was 100 and the area 20.53 acres). The extent of the area in kanies is 17-10. These lands were manyam lands, that is to say, lands held at a low assessment or altogether free in consideration of services. It is now clear from the record and indeed it is admitted on all hands that they were the subject of an inam granted in ancient times by the Rulers and that they were held for the performance of puja in Sri Meenakshi Sundareswaral Devasthanam, Madurai. In 1948 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai held, after enquiry, that the inam consisted of both melwaram and kudiwaram and as the inam lands had been alienated the inam was liable to be resumed. His order was passed on April 9, 1948 and reported to be under S. 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (Madras Act 2 of 1927). The inam lands were resumed and regranted to the Devasthanam. At that time the lands were in the possession of the Roman Catholic Mission of St. Mary s Church, Madurai and were so held by the Mission since October, 1894. Against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer the Mission appealed to the District Collector under S. 44-B(4) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on March 13, 1949. The District Collector also held that the inam comprised both the Warams.

2. The Roman Catholic Mission thereupon instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai under S. 44-B (2)(d) of the Act for a declaration that the inam consisted only of the melwaram. The suit was later withdrawn by the District Judge to his own file and it was registered as O. S. 1 of 1954. The Mission also instituted another suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai which was also withdrawn by the District Judge to his file and was registered as O. S. 2 of 1954. The Second suit was a mere general one. It also sought the declaration which was the subject of O. S. 1 of 1954 and it questioned both the right to resume the lands as well as the resumption which was ordered by the revenue courts. In that suit the Mission contended that the particular inam was outside the scope of S. 44-B of the Madras Act 2 of 1927 as it was a personal inam and not liable to resumption under that section and that the section itself was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. The province of Madras (now the State of Madras) and Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarl Devasthanam, Madurai were made defendants.

3. The District Judge dismissed O. S. No. 1 of 1954, holding that the inam consisted of both the warams. In O. S. 2 of 1954 the same finding was repeated and it was further held that the order of resumption was invalid and without jurisdiction since the inams in question were personal inams and did not come within the purview of S. 44-B. The District Judge granted a declaration to that effect and also issued an injunction against the Devasthanam which had not taken possession of the land till then. Against the decision in O. S. 1 of 1954 the Mission appealed and against the decision in O. S. 2 of 1954 the Devasthanam and the State of Madras filed appeals. A. S. 734 of 1954 was filed by the Roman Catholic Mission against the decision in O. S. 1 of 1954 and A. S. 773 and 787 of 1954 were filed in O. S. 2 of 1954 by the State of Madras and Sri Meenakshi Sundareswaral, etc. Devasthanam, respectively. The High Court decided all the three appeals on December 14, 1959 pronouncing a separate judgment in A. S. 734 of 1954 and disposing of the other two appeals by a common judgment.

4. The finding that both the warams were the subject of the inam was reversed by the High Court and O. S. 1 of 1954 was decreed. The finding that the inams were persona