IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Satyanarayana Rao and Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri.
Rasa Koundan
Versus
Janaki Ammal
S.A. No. 1713 of 1947.
Decided On : 06 February 1950
Satyanarayana Rao, J.-Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The lands in suit of the extent of 5 acres 20 cents were held by the plaintiff’s predecessors as Devadasi service inam for rendering service in a temple. After the enactment of section 44-A by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Amendment Act (Madras Act V of 1929) the Government disannexed the inam from the service and granted a title deed to the plaintiff on 13th April, 1931, which is marked as Exhibit P-1 in the case. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the property from the defendants who resisted it on the ground that they had acquired title to the lands by adverse possession. Without referring to the long history of the previous proceedings in the suit it would be sufficient for the purpose of disposing of this appeal to state that. On an issue remitted for trial by the District Court, it has now been finally determined that the inam grant consisted of both the warams. The only question that remains for disposal in this second appeal is the effect of the enfranchisement proceedings of the year 1931 on the title of the plaintiff. The contention urged on behalf of the plaintiff in the court below and which found favour with the learned District Judge is that the inam title deed of 1931 created a fresh title and that the defendants could not resist the suit for possession and rely on long possession which they held when the service tenure subsisted as the title, if any, which was then extinguished under the law of limitation is not the title on which the plaintiff is now seeking to recover possession of the property. It has also been found by the courts below-and it is not disputed before us-that the defendants failed to establish a title by prescription as against the Government as they were not in possession for the required statutory period of sixty years. The case has, therefore, to be considered on the footing that the inam grant in favour of the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-title comprised both the warams and that the grant is a service grant which was recognised in the inam proceedings of 1860 by the issue of a title deed-title deed No. 33-and that the defendants’ only defence is long possession at a time when the service tenure subsisted. If, as contended by the plaintiff, she had acquired a fresh title under the enfranchisement proceedings of 1931 the defendants’ prescriptive title which commenced and which was perfected when service tenure was subsisting would be of no avail as it is not that title on which the plaintiff is now relying to seek to recover possession of the property.
It is no doubt true that an enfranchisement of an inam does not always imply a resumption of the original grant and a re-grant of the property. In order to determine in a given case the effect of an enfranchisement on the title to the property, one has to examine the tenure on which the land was previously held and which was sought to be altered or substituted by a new tenure by the enfranchisement proceedings. If, as in the case of karnam service inam, the lands constitute emoluments attached to the office or as remuneration for the service and annexed to it, the enjoyment of the property follows the title to the office or the liability to render service. The succession to the service may be governed by the ordinary principles of the personal law of the parties, Hindu law as in the present case or may be governed by the Hindu law as modified by statute as in the case of karnam service inam lands. In the case of karnam service inams, it may be mentioned that the only statutory modification is that the claimant has to show that he is entitled to succeed to the office under the Hindu law on the principle of primogeniture but that by itself would not give him an automatic right to the office. His right has further to be recognised and an appointment to the office must be made by the Government because the statute relating
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.