Consideration of claim made in good faith about possession.

The petitioner is G. Srinivasulu, Inspector, H. R. & C. E., Gooty Division, Trustee, Religious Endowment Mudda Inam attached to Grama Devata temple, Pedda Kowkuntla, Rayadrug Taluk, Anantapur district. He filed an application Crl. M.P. No. 40 of 1961 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadrug, under section 87 of the H. R. & C.E. Act, praying for possession of certain properties. Along with his application, he also produced a certificate duly issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner. There were nine respondents in that case. Two of them, namely, respondents 7 and 8, did not contest the petition and remained ex parte. The others contested the petition. The learned Judicial First Glass Magistrate dismissed that petition after considering the voluminous documentary evidence placed before him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed this petition praying to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.

It is mentioned in the lower Court’s order as follows:

"Exhibit B-2 is the Inam ‘B’ register together with genealogies of Reddy and Karnam families. It shows that the original grant was made in favour of Thimmanna the great great grandfather of one Ayyappa Reddy and Chikkappa the great great grandfather of first respondent that Lakshmireddy and Karnam Govindappa were in joint enjoyment of the said Mudda Inam lands..........

These documents are relied on to show that the respondents have been enjoying the properties as their own sometimes mortgaging them and sometimes alienating them as absolute owners It is conceded by the Advocate for the petitioner that these lands under consideration have been (in the) enjoyment of the respondents, their vendors or their ancestors for more than a century........

From a consideration of the Inam Fair Register, the Inam B Statement and the genealogical tables marked as Exhibits A-9, A-10, A-5, A-4 and B-2, B-9, to B-11 which are the ancient documents, it will be seen that the lands were granted in the name of individuals, namely, the V.M. and the K.M. styling the inams as Mudda Inams."

The District Collector, Bellary, passed an order Exhibit A-8 dated 14th February, 1942 after due enquiry, changing the entry in the Registers regarding the inam from personal inam to religious inam. It is beyond doubt or dispute that the mam are enfranchised inams.

In the petition the contesting respondents raised various contentions including the following:

"....The petition schedule properties are hereditary personal inams granted to the two families of Reddy and Karnam. These respondents and their predecessors have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said lands for over 100 years in their own right, and they have been enjoying the lands as their own executing gift deeds, mortgage, etc. These respondents are neither trustees nor office holders nor servants of any religious institution and they are not even claiming any title from any such office holders. Therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession as the respondents are claiming in good faith to be in possession........

The learned Magistrate framed two points for decision:

"1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to enquire into the claim of the respondents in view of the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner?

2. Whether the respondents are claiming in good faith to be in possession of their own account as urged before the Court?

After considering the evidence, the learned Magistrate held as follows;-"It may be stated that innumerable complicated questions such as

(a) Whether the original grant was in favour of the V.M. and the K.M. for a particular service namely, to decide the boundary dispute,

(b) What is the meaning of the Mudda Inam,

(c) Is it a grant for any religious purpose,

(d) What is the effect of the change in the nature of the grant from the personal to religious as ordered by the District Collector in the year 1942.

(e) To what extent Exhibit A-7 statement goes to derogation of the rights o