Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.-The appeal has been filed by one Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the defendant in O.S. No. 70 of 1953, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore (O.S. No. 22 of 1951, on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore). The facts were briefly these:

That was a suit filed by Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam of Avidayarkoil, by its hereditary trustee, Sri Subramania Pandarasannadhi, Atheenakartha, of the Tiruvaduthurai Atheenam, for recovering Rs. 11,415-8-6 being the principal and interest due from the appellant, as damages for use and occupation of the temple lands for faslis 1357-1360, at Rs. 3-9-0 per acre per annum. It was alleged that the suit lands measuring 729 acres 17 cents and lying in three villages, Kalagam, Pazhayanagaram and Arasulankaranbai, belonged absolutely to the temple in iruwaram eka bhogam right and did not constitute ryoti lands but were pannai or home farm lands which lay as waste from time immemorial and constituted old waste, and that in fasli 1354, the then Pandarasannadhi, the previous trustee of the temple, was trying to reclaim some portions of those lands and to bring them under cultivation, in pursuance of vigorous grow-more-food campaign initiated by the revenue authorities and encouraged by the H.R. E. Board, but that as the temple had not the necessary resources, the progress of reclamation, if undertaken by it, would be inappreciable and very slow. The Government were urging for speedy reclamation of these lands and for bringing them to cultivation, as they were irrigable under the CauveriMettur project. The revenue authorities recommended one Srinivasa Ayyangar as a suitable man for taking in hand the reclamation, as the temple was not able to. do it by itself. But Srinivasa Ayyangar’s offer was not accepted for some reason or other by the then Pandarasannadhi. The Manager of the Tiruvaduthurai Mutt was one V. Krishnaswami Ayyangar then. He was also the legal adviser for the Mutt at Kumbakonam. His grandson was married to the appellant’s daughter. Whether the appellant came to know about this scheme for reclaiming the suit lands from his sambandhi Krishnaswami Ayyangar, the manager, or independently, he made an offer to the Pandarasannadhi, Exhibit B-1, dated 31st July, 1944, to reclaim the land, offering to pay the temple cash rent or a portion of the crop, after the usual remissions and concessions for the earlier years in such cases of reclamation. He requested to be put in possession of the lands forthwith in order to enable him to take advantage of the concessions offered by the Government regarding the water rate and to raise the crops at once. The revenue authorities strongly recommended his application, holding him up as a man of influence and resources and as one who had built a temple in Madras at his own cost and was maintaining it at great sacrifice. The then Pandarasannadhi was said to have consulted his Advocate at Madras regarding his power to grant the prayer in Exhibit B-1, without any sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. The Advocate replied that it was within the ordinary powers of his management to grant the prayer. Thereupon the then Pandarasannadhi granted the suit lands on patta to the appellant, after receiving a premium of Rs. 3,000, and delivered the suit lands to the appellant on 21st August, 1944, under Exhibit B-22, in pursuance of his order Exhibit A-3, dated 16th August,1944. The rate of rent was not fixed in Exhibit A-3 or Exhibit B-22. The appellant was told that no rent was demanded from him for faslis 1354 and 1355, that is, for the first two years. Even in the suit, the rent for those years was not claimed. The then Pandarasannadhi intimated to the H.R.E. Board the orders passed by him in Exhibit A-3, and he said wrongly in that communication, Exhibit A-5, dated 4th October, 1944, that the lands granted were service tenure lands. On a further report being called for by the H.R.E. Board, he said that the lands were not service tenur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document