1976 Supreme(Mad) 609

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KAILASAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BALASUBRAHMANYAN
The Karivaradaraja Perumal Temple at Pollachi, by its Mg. Trustee, T.R.M.S. Ramanathan Chettiar
Versus
K.S.J. Raju Chettiar & Others
S.T.A. 174, 181 & 210 of 1974
Decided On :Decided On : 09-11-1976

The grant in favour of the temple was of both the warams and the respondents could not rely on their so-called prescriptive title which accrued to them as against the temple as a foundation for claiming ryotwari patta under S. 8(1) of the Act. The scheme of S. 8 rules out of there cognition of prescriptive title to kudiwaram right in a religious inam.

Headnote:

TAMIL NADU MINOR INAMS ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI ACT, 1963 - SECTION 8(1), 8(2) - CONSTRUCTION - IRUWARAM RELIGIOUS INAM - GRANT OF RYOTWARI PATTA - PERSON ENTITLED TO - ADVERSE POSSESSION - WHETHER CAN BE RELIED UPON.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Sri Varadarajaperumal temple of Pollachi, was the grantee of a minor inam comprising lands bearing O.S. No. 173 and 175 of the total extent of 19-58 acres in Pollachi village. The grant was made by the Poligar of Ramapatnam. The terms of the original grant are not available, but the inam fair register shows that it was a devadayam religious inam of a permanent character given rent-free for the support of the temple. The inam was confirmed in the year 1863 under title deed No. 161. On the abolition of the minor inam under Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1963, the Settlement Tahsildar No. II, Gobichettipalayam, initiated an enquiry for the purpose of issue of ryotwari patta. The respondents 1 and 2 in S.T.A. 174 of 1974 were in possession of 4 ac, 2700 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 256/3. The 1st respondent in S.T.A. 181 and 210 of 1974 was in possession of T.S. 254/20 of the extent of O. 25345 sq.ft. and T.S. No. 256/7 of the extent of 2 ac. 24115 sq. ft. All of them appeared before the Settlement Tahsildar and asked for ryotwari patta to be issued in their favour in regard to the lands in their respective possession They claimed that the temple had lost possession of the inam lands soon after the grant. According to them, the lands were alienated by one Poosari Thirumalai Ayyan, person in whose name the Inam Commissioner had conferred the grant. No sale deed by this individual was, however, produced by the respondents before the Settlement Tahsildar at the time of the enquiry. Instead, they produced a partition deed, dated 17th February 1888 between three members of a joint family, by name Kuppanna Mudaliar, Marianna Mudaliar and Lakshmana Mudaliar. These individuals were grandsons of one Kuppanna Mudaliar. The recitals in the partition deed were relied on by the respondents to show that long prior to the partition in the year 1888, the family of Kuppanna Mudaliar had been in exelusive possession and enjoyment of the inam lands. The respondents also produced a number of subsequent documents to show how they and their predecessors-in-title had purchased portion of the lands from the dividing members ( sic ) of whom they were alloted under the partition deed. The Settlement Tahsildar held that the partition deed relied on by the respondents could, by no means, be regarded as a sale by the inamdar of the temple in question. Nevertheless, taking note of the subsequent sale deeds under which the respondents traced their title to the respective town survey numbers and taking note of the fact that after purchase they were in continuous possession of the lands for more than 12 years before 1st April 1960, the Settlement Tahsildar proceeded to issue ryotwari patta to the respondents purporting to do so under S. 8(2) (i) (b) of the Act subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The record shows that before the Settlement Tahsildar, the respondents had agreed to pay the Government 20 times the excess of the fair rent for the lands over the land revenue, as a condition of obtaining ryotwari patta. Neverthless, they appealed against the Settlement Tahsildars order, objecting to the stipulation that they should pay compensation to the Government. They urged that they were entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta without any strings attached. They put their claim under S. 8(1) of the Act contending that the temple had no title to the melwaran interest and they alone were rightfully entitled to the kudiwaram interest, and consequently, to the issue of ryotwari patta on the abolition of the minor inam.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the grant in favour of the temple was of both the warams and that the respondents could not rely on their so-called prescriptive title which accrued to them as against the temple as a foundation for claiming ryotwari patta under S. 8(1) of the Act. The court further held that the very scheme of S. 8 rules out of there cognition of prescriptive title to kudiwaram right in a religious inam. The court also held that in view of the clear provisions of S. 3(g) of the Act, the claim, as put forward by the respondent cannot lie.

Issues: 1. Whether the grant in favour of the temple was of melwaram alone or of both the warams? 2. Whether the respondents could rely on their so-called prescriptive title which accrued to them as against the temple as a foundation for claiming ryotwari patta under S. 8(1) of the Act? 3. Whether the scheme of S. 8 rules out of there cognition of prescriptive title to kudiwaram right in a religious inam?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the grant in favour of the temple was of both the warams based on the following reasons: a) The presumption under S. 44 of the Act that the grant in favour of the temple should be held to have included not merely the melwaram in the land but also the kudiwaram. b) The fact that the temple is entitled to rely on the statutory presumption under S. 44 of the Act in the absence of the original inam grant or clear terms of the grant from the extract from the Inam Fair Register. 2. The court held that the respondents could not rely on their so-called prescriptive title which accrued to them as against the temple as a foundation for claiming ryotwari patta under S. 8(1) of the Act based on the following reasons: a) S. 3(g) of the Act extinguishes all rights and interests which had accrued to any person before the appointed day against the inamdar. b) Acquisition of title to the kudiwaram by prescription or adverse possession must be held to answer the description ‘accrual of rights against the inamdar’ occuring in S. 3(g) of the Act. c) The scheme of S. 8 rules out of there cognition of prescriptive title to kudiwaram right in a religious inam. 3. The court held that the scheme of S. 8 rules out of there cognition of prescriptive title to kudiwaram right in a religious inam based on the following reasons: a) S. 8(1) is subject to the provisions of sub-S.(2). b) S. 8(2) has two clauses, Cl.(1) and Cl. (ii). Under the scheme of the sub-section, Cl.(ii) would apply only where Cl.(1) does not apply. c) Cl.(i) has two sub-Clauses (a) and (b). They contemplate that ryotwari patta in an iruwaram minor inam of a religious institution would be denied to that institution and would be granted to any other person only in cases where that other person is able to establish two things: (1) that he had obtained a transfer of the land from the religious institution by way of sale, and (2) that he had been in uninterrupted possession of the land for a period of 60 years or 12 years, as the case may be, immediately before 1st April 1960. d) The fact that these provisions require not merely long possession but also a right derived from actual transfer of title by purchase as the f oundation of the claim shows that the legislative intention was not to recognise, for the purpose of the Act, any claim to ryotwari patta on the basis, merely of adverse possession.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the order of the Settlement Tahsildar was set aside and he was directed to grant ryotwari patta to the appellant in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of these appeals.