Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. JAYASIMHA BABU & F.M. IBRAHIM KALLIFULLA
Adheenakarthar
Versus
Thiru M. Pattabhiraman & Others
S.T.A. Nos. 36 & 37 of 1982
Decided On :Decided On : 28-02-2001
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Section 8(2)(ii) - Grant of patta - Presumption under Section 44 - Rebuttal - Burden of proof - Evidence - Inam fair register extract - Patta issued by Inamdar and Izaradar - Sale deeds - Mortgage deeds - Settlement deeds - Land acquisition proceedings - Compensation paid to ryots - Entries in Adangals - Statement of Endowment Assistant Commissioner - Service to temple - Dharmadayam grant - Charitable purpose - Grant for the worship of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy temple - Institution entitled to benefits under Section 44 - Initial presumption that the institution was holding both the varams - Rebuttal of presumption - Circumstances and materials - Findings of lower authorities - Dismissal of appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Inamdar, filed two appeals against a common judgment of the Minor Inams Tribunal, Chengalpattu, confirming the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar and the Assistant Settlement Officer granting relief in favor of the respondents. The appellant claimed patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), contending that it held both varams (ownership rights) in the village covered by Title Deed No. 482 of 1862. The respondents, the villagers, contested the claim, asserting that the appellant held only Melvaram (superior right) and that they held Kudivaram (inferior right).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the presumption under Section 44 of Act 30 of 1963, which provides an initial presumption that an Inamdar holding a Dharmadayam grant for a charitable purpose holds both varams, was rebutted by the evidence on record. The court considered various factors, including the Inam fair register extract, pattas issued by the Inamdar and Izaradar, sale deeds, mortgage deeds, settlement deeds, land acquisition proceedings, compensation paid to ryots, entries in Adangals, and the statement of the Endowment Assistant Commissioner. The court found that the appellant had only Melvaram right and that the respondents held Kudivaram right. The court also held that the grant was for the worship of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy temple and that the institution was entitled to the benefits under Section 44 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant, an Inamdar, held both varams (ownership rights) in the village covered by Title Deed No. 482 of 1862. 2. Whether the respondents, the villagers, held Kudivaram (inferior right) in the village. 3. Whether the presumption under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), which provides an initial presumption that an Inamdar holding a Dharmadayam grant for a charitable purpose holds both varams, was rebutted by the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption under Section 44 of Act 30 of 1963 was rebutted by the evidence on record. The court considered various factors, including the Inam fair register extract, pattas issued by the Inamdar and Izaradar, sale deeds, mortgage deeds, settlement deeds, land acquisition proceedings, compensation paid to ryots, entries in Adangals, and the statement of the Endowment Assistant Commissioner. The court found that the appellant had only Melvaram right and that the respondents held Kudivaram right. The court also held that the grant was for the worship of Sri Kalahastiswara Swamy temple and that the institution was entitled to the benefits under Section 44 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Minor Inams Tribunal ‘(Sub-Court) of Chengalpattu, dated 30-10-1981 in C.M.A. Nos. 35 and 34 of 1973.
2. C.M.A. No. 35 of 1973 was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14.5.1973 of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu made in S.R. No. 24/AIB/73 Act 30/63/Sdt, while C.M.A. No. 34 of 1973 was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14-5-1973 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu made in S.R. No. 24/AIB/73/Act 30/63/Sdt. The orders of the Settlement Tahsildar, as well as that of Assistant Settlement Officer were identical while granting relief in favour of the respondents herein and as such, the appellant preferred the above two appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 35 of 1973 and 34 of 1973 before the Minor Inams Tribunal (Sub Court) of Chengalpattu who also confirmed the findings of the Settlement Tahsilder as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer. Aggrieved against the said common judgment rendered in C.M.A. Nos. 35 of 1973 and 34 of 1973, the appellant has come forward with these two Special Tribunal Appeals.
3. The brief history of the case: perusal of the voluminous documents discloses that the lands covered by (Tile Deed) T.D. No. 482, dated 3.4.1862 were originally declared as Inam Estate within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948). The said declaration was set aside by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore by its order dated 3-3-1955 in A.S. No. 47 of 1954 (filed against case No. 1/1954). Against the said order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, the State preferred an appeal before this Honourable Court in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958. The said appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated 3-1-1961 holding as under:
“Though we have rested our decision on other grounds, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal that Adambakkam was not an Inam Estate and we direct that the appeal be dismissed with costs of the second respondent.”
4. Subsequent to the Judgment dated 3.1.1961 passed in S.T.A. No. 7 of 1958, the Government cancelled the Notification issued under Act 26 of 1948. After the advent of Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act (Act 26 of 1963), the village was notified under the said Act. The appellant questioned the constitutional validity of the said Act and on meeting with failure in W.P.1460 of 1965 in this Honourable Court, went to Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.215 of 1967 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 18.11.1970. Thereafter, the village was taken over on 30-6-1971. The appellant filed a writ petition and also a petition under Section 5 (1) of Tamil Nadu Inams (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1963 seeking for a declaration that the lands covered by T.D. No. 482 was a free hold land. By order dated 14-10-1971 in S.R. No. 1/Act 31 of 1963/71, the Settlement Officer, Salem held that a specified extent of 308.8.0 cawnies was granted in T.D. No. 482, as the poramboke and other Inams were deducted from the total ex tent in the village and the remainder given as “Shrotrium” and hence declared the grant in T.D. No. 482 as a Minor Inam. It is relevant to point out that in that proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an endorsement to the effect that the appellant was not pressing its claim for declaration of free hold rights. After the declaration of the lands covered by T.D. No. 482 as Minor Inams, the village was deleted from the original notification under Act 26 of 1963 and was again notified under Section 1 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) pursuant to which, the lands vested with the Government with effect from 15-2-1965 i.e. the date of coming into force of Act 30 of 1963.
5. The statutory enquiry for the grant of patta for the lands comprised
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
