Govinda Menon, J. - This is an appeal by leave, from the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in S.A. No. 819 of 1945 and reported in Govindaswami Naidu v. T. P. Devasthanam 1 , which raises the question as to whether the appellant has occupancy rights in the lands which are the subject-matter of the Second Appeal.

The material facts have been sufficiently elaborately stated in the judgment under appeal and so do not require reiteration except for the purpose of appreciating the legal question discussed hereunder. Summary Suit No. 37 of 1942 was filed by the appellant under section 35 of the Madras Estates Land Act for the grant of a patta against the respondent. The Tanjore Palace Devasthanam is represented by its hereditary trustee Sri Rajaram Rajah Saheb. The appellant who was a lessee from the respondent for a period of one year of the lands in question claimed that they have become an estate under the Madras Act XVIII of 1936 as a result of which he was entitled to the grant of a patta with the consequent exchange of muchilika, whereas the respondent’s contention was that they are private lands to which no occupancy rights could be attached. Though the trial Court decided in favour of the appellant the conclusion arrived in the Court of appeal was that the lands are private lands as defined in section 3(10) of the Estates Land Act in which case no patta can be issued. Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., confirming the decision of the learned District Judge granted leave to appeal.

There is no dispute whatever that the Rajahs of Tanjore had granted the entire village of Arumulipettai to the Mariamman temple for the purpose that the income thereform may be utilised for the performance of puja and other religious ceremonies in the temple and as stated in the judgment under appeal it is common ground that from the date of the grant the entire free-hold rights vested in the temple and not the melwaram alone. The manner in which the temple enjoyed the lands was as if the entire proprietary right was the subject of the grant so that it cannot be disputed that both the warams were owned by the grantee and the same has been recognised and affirmed in several proceedings that had taken place before the lease to the appellant on 5th September, 1941.

According to the appellant the lands are ryoti lands since the village has become an estate by the Estate Land Act of 1936 and on that score he is entitled to the grant of patta. On the other hand, what is urged on behalf of the Devasthanam is that all along during the course of more than a century and a half the Devasthanam had been in possession of enjoyment of the lands in question as private lands.

Until the leasing in favour of the plaintiff, the mode in which cultivation of the lands took place was, a lease would be granted to the highest bidder at the auction held by the Devasthanam and the leave would be granted for periods ranging from one year to twenty years. On deposit of the bid amount the lease would be confirmed. The evidence in the case shows that there has never been continuous possession of the lands for any length of time by the same lessee or by members of a family in succession. Such being the case it is a legitimate inference that though there has been no personal cultivation by the management of the Devasthanam still this course of conduct is consistent with the intention of changing the cultivatiors from time to time.

In C.M.P. No. 917 of 1956 we have admitted the plan of the village of Arumulipettai in Papanasam taluk as additional evidence in order to understand the nature of the locality as well as to elucidate the contents of Exhibit D-12, record-of-rights to register of Arumulipettai village, for we have found it difficult to appreciate the the several entries in the record-of-rights register without the aid of the plan of the village in question. In our opinion it is necessary for delivering the judgment in the case that the plan should be admitted. On behalf of the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document