Judgement

Appeal (No. 5 of 1945) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 30, 1943) which set aside a decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly (March 7, 1941).

This appeal arose out of a suit brought by appellants 1 to 4 for a modification of the scheme framed by the first respondent under s. 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, for the proper administration of the Sri Papavinasaswami Temple at Papanasam and of certain endowments for special religious services therein. The subject-matter in dispute comprised

52 Law Rep. 74 Ind. App. 230 ( 1946- 1947)

N. Sankaranarayana P. v. Board of C ommnr. Hindu Religious

153

certain inam and ryotwari properties set apart for the Ardhajama Kattalai (midnight service) in the temple. The appellants contended that they were the owners of the suit properties which, they said, were subject to a charge in favour of the Ardhajama Kattalai for the performance of the worship according to a prescribed scale, and that they were entitled to appropriate the surplus income from the suit properties after performing the kattalai in accordance with the prescribed scale. The respondents contended that the suit properties had been completely dedicated for the purposes of the Ardhajama Kattalai and that, therefore, they were entitled to the entire income from the suit properties.

The District Court accepted the appellants contention and decreed the suit and modified the scheme as prayed for. The High Court (Somayya and Horwill JJ.) rejected the appellants contention and dismissed the suit.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1947. June 3, 4. Sir Thomas Strangman K.C., Khambatta K.C. and Jayakar for the appellants. The main question in the appeal is whether the suit properties had been wholly dedicated to the religious charity or whether, as the appellants submit, there had been merely a charge on the income of the properties in favour of the charity. Cases frequently occur in India where there has not been a complete dedication, but only a charge Iswari Bhubaneshwari Thakurani v. Brojo Nath Dey (( 1937)

L. R. 64 I. A. 203,211.). The expenses of the kattalai consist of the purchase of the articles necessary for the service and the payment of two people, and there are concurrent findings of fact that the necessary articles are issued and utilized according to a fixed scale. This midnight kattalai was founded some cen turies ago—there are no documents relating to the foundation. [Reference was made to Ramanathan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti (( 1906) L. R. 33 I. A. 139,143.).] The properties—on which the appellants say there is only a charge, and which the respondents allege have been completely dedicated—consist, first, of four inams—rent free grants—of a comparatively small amount of land, and, secondly; of ryotwari or ayan (assessed) lands—of a comparatively large area. The inams appear to have been granted about three hundred years ago by the Carnatic Kings. There is no evidence to show when the ryotwari land was acquired. The written grant being absent, it is submitted that the purpose of the dedication must be gathered from the established usage and practice Mahammad Mazaffar-al-Musavi v. Jabeda Khatun (( 1930) L. R. 57 I,

A. 125,130.), which applies to ascertain the extent of the dedication. Inam proceedings do not create any dedication there are two Privy Council cases relating to the proceedings of the Inam Commission Arunachellam Chetty v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal (( 1919) L. R. 46 I. A. 204, 217.) and Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar (( 1921) L. R. 48 I. A. 302, 326.). With regard to the ryotwari pattas, there is authority that a chargee would be referred to as the pattadar Secretary of State v. Raghavachariar (( 1924) I. L. R. 47 M. 861, 873.), Secretary of State for India v. Janakiramayya Pantulu (( 1925) 48 Mad. L. J. 440, 442.), which are cited on how much weight is to be given to pattas and to "the usage. There are concurrent findi