Palaniswami, J.- These two appeals arise out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An extent of 4 acres, 16 cents in R.S. No. 167/1, Tallakulam village, Madurai Taluk has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Madurai Neighbourhood Project. As there were rival claims for the compensation, the Acquisition Officer made the reference under section 30. The first claimant contended that the land had been granted in inam in favour of his ancestors in both warams for the service of paricharakam in the pagoda of Kallalagar Devasthanam and that he was entitled to the compensation amount in respect of 1 acre 63 cents. He conceded that the second claimant was entitled to compensation in respect of 2 acres 53 cents as alienee. The second claimant supported the case of the first claimant that what was granted consisted of both the Melwaram and Kudiwaram and claimed compensation for the extent of 2 acres 53 cents, which he claimed to have purchased on 1st March, 1960, from the heir of the original grantee. The Kallalagar Devasthanam contended that what was granted was for the performance of paricharakam service, that the inam was inalienable and that , therefore, the entire compensation amount was payable to the Devasthanam.

2. Claimants 3 to 15, 18 to 23 and 25 contended that what was granted was only melwaram, that kudiwaram was always in the possession and enjoyment of the ryots and that under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXX of 1963) the kudiwaramdars alone were entitled to receive the compensation amount. Claimants 16 and 17 did not put forward any claim.

3. On a consideration of the evidence, the Court below held that the grant for paricharakam service comprised only melwaram interest that the grant was not to the office of paricharakam and that the grant being personal, the Devasthanam was not entitled to claim the compensation. The Court below further found that the kudiwaram interest was dealt with by those in possession, and accepting their claim, the Court below held that claimants 3 to 15, 18 to 23 and 25 were entitled to share the compensation in certain proportions. Aggrieved by this order the second claimant has filed A.S. No. 769 of 1967, whereas the Executive Officer of the Kallalagar Devasthanam has filed A.S. No. 15 of 1968.

4. The first claimant, Amudar Sundararaja Iyengar, the descendant of the original grantee, put forward the contention that the grant was of both warams. Though his contention was not accepted by the Court below, he has not preferred an appeal. He was supported by the second claimant Gopal Naidu, who has filed A.S. No. 769 of 1967. It was the contention of the Devasthanam also that the subject-matter of the grant was of both warams. In these circumstances, the substantial question that arises for consideration is whether the subject-matter of the grant was of both warams or was of melwaram only. There is no presumption that the grant was of both warams or of melwaram only. The question as to whether, in a particular case, the subject of grant was of both warams or one waram only has to be decided upon the evidence in each case. The original title deed is not produced. The only material evidence is that furnished by the extract from the Inam Register, which is marked as Exhibit B-6. The importance of the recitals in the Inam Register has been emphasised by the Judicial Committee in Arunachalam Chetti v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal1. It is pointed out that the Inam Commission enquiry is one made on the spot after hearing witnesses and examining documents with regard to each property and that where no other evidence is available, utmost importance should be attached to the information set forth in the Inam Register. The Privy Council reiterated this view in Sankaranarayana Pillaiyan’s case2. Following this view, the Supreme Court in Periaswami Gounder v. Sundaresa Iyer3, h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document