Case: Buddu Satyanarayana And Others Vs. Konduru Venkatapayya And Others

made. In the copies of the Inam Register and Inam Statement filed in that case the Archakas were shown as the grantees and the present enjoyers of the Inam grant and the amount shown under the heading in column 2 of the Inam register as the assessment was the same as the amount shown under column 3 of the Inam Statement under the heading "Income derived from Inam". In the case before us the Archakas are nowhere mentioned in either Exhibit P/3 or in Exhibit D/3, there is no evidence that they had any title to kudivaram rights and finally the amount of assessment shown under column 7 of the Inam register, Exhibit P/3, is Rs. 198139, whereas the amount shown as income derived from the Inam as shown in column 13 of the Inam Statement, Exhibit D/3, is Rs. 26631. Apart from these points of distinction the decision relied on by the learned Attorney-General appears to us to be of doubtful authority. As will appear from the passages quoted above, the decision rested mainly, if not entirely, on the fact that the amount of assessment and the amount of income were the same and the conclusion was drawn that the Inam grant comprised only of the revenue assessment, i.e., of melvaram rights. We are unable to follow the reasoning. Whether the Inam comprised the land itself, that is to say, both melvaram and kudivaram rights or only the melvaram rights, the entries had to be made in the Inam Register in the same form and even in the case of the grant of the land itself comprising both the rights the amount of assessment had to be set out under column 7 of the Inam Register for it is notsuggested that a different form had to be used where the grant comprised both the rights. It follows, therefore, that no inference that the Inam -grant comprised only melvaram rights can be inferred from the fact that under column 7 only the amount of assessment is set out, and, therefore, the reasoning on which the decision relied on by the learned Attorney-General was founded cannot be supported as correct. Indeed, that decision has been dissented from by another Bench of the Madras High Court in Yelamanchili Venkatadri & another v. Vedantam Seshacharyulu and others (A.I.R. 1948 Mad. 72) . In the present case the High Court was, in our opinion, clearly right in preferring the last mentioned decision to the unreported decision mentioned above. Having regard to the different entries under the different columns in Exhibit P/3 and Exhibit D/3 there is no escape from the position that this Inam grant in favour of the temple comprised both the interests in the land.6. An argument was sought to be raised by the learned Attorney- General that the grantor Janganna Rao was only the Collector of the revenue and as such could not grant more than what he had got. Reference was made to the Kistna District Manual by Gordon Mackenzie but it appeared that the person therein mentioned was not the same grantor as we are concerned with in this case and the point was not pursued and nothing further need be said about it.7. Finally, the learned Attorney-General submits that these Archakas who were rendering services faithfully from generation to generation from ancient times should not, in equity, be ejected from the entire lands and that they should be allowed to remain in possession of the lands and be permitted to appropriate to themselves the expenses of the services and a reasonable remuneration and the rest of the income should be made over to the temple as its property. Reference was made to two unreported decisions of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 218 of 1946Dandibhotla Kutumba Sastrulu v. Kontharapu Venkatalingam, and in Appeal No. 709 of 1944, Buddu Satyanarayana v. Dasari Butchayya, Executive Officer of the Temple of Sri Malleswaraswami Varu, China Pulivaram. In a proceeding for the framing of a scheme relating to a temple it may be permissible to take into account the claims, moral if not legal, of the Archakas and to make some provision for protecting their rights, but those considerations appear to us to be entirely out of place in a suit for ejectment on proof of title. If the two decisions lay down, as it is contended they do, that the principles which may have a bearing on a proceeding for framing of a scheme or for enforcing the scheme that is framed may be applied to a case of the kind we have now before us it will be difficult for us to uphold them either on authority or on principle. Further what is the conduct of the Archakas defendants appearing on the record of this case ? Although they are Archakas they actually asserted an adverse right in the face of the honest admission of their predecessors in title, made in the Inam statement Exhibit D-3. Such conduct cannot but be regarded as disentitling them from any claim founded on equity. The explanation put forward for the first time in paragraph 7 of their present statement of case filed in this Court explaining the absence of a claim to the property by their predecessors at the time of the Inam Inquiry namely, respect for the deity enjoined by Agama Shastra is not at all convincing. Further, the giving of such equitable relief must depend on questions of fact, namely, the income of the property, the reasonable expenses and remuneration for the services, the amounts appropriated by them all this time and so forth which have not been investigated into in this case, because, no doubt, this question of equitable relief has been put forward as a last resort after having lost their battle. We do not think in the circumstances of the case any indulgence should be shown to the Archakas even if it were permissible for the Court in a suit of this description to give such relief.8.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is true that the original grant is not forthcoming but turning to the evidence we find two documents which appear to us to be decisive on the question of title. The first one is Exhibit P/3, a copy of the relevant entries in the Inam Register of 1860. This Inam Register was prepared after enquiries made by the Inam Deputy Collector and the statements furnished at that time by the then Archakas were taken into consideration for preparing the register. The copy of the statement filed by the then Archakas before the Inam Deputy Collector was exhibited in this case as Exhibit D/3. In the Inam Register (Ex. P/3) under the several columns grouped under the general heading " Class extent and value of Inam " this Inam is classified in column 2 as Devadayam. In column 3 are set out the survey numbers together with the word Dry indicating the nature of the land comprised within the surveythe heading " Income derived from the Inam whether it is sarvadumbala or jodi. lf jodi the amount" in column 13 is stated " sarvadumbala Inam Cist according to the rate prevailing in the neighbouring fields Rs. 26631." This statement (Ex. D/3) bearsthe signature of the Karnams and the witnesses. it will be noticed that neither in the Inam Register Ex. P/3 nor in the statement Ex. D/3 is there any mention of the Archakas as the grantee or for the matter of that, having any the least -interest, personal or otherwise, in the subject-matter of the Inam grant. The two exhibits quite clearly indicate that the Inam grant was made in favour of the temple by the gurant or and that in the face of this definite evidence and proof of the nature of the grant, no presumption of a lost grant can be made in favour of the Archakas. We, therefore, in agreement with the High Court, hold that the deity was the grantee and the first question raised before us must be answered against thefrom these points of distinction the decision relied on by the learned Attorney-General appears to us to be of doubtful authority. As will appear from the passages quoted above, the decision rested mainly, if not entirely, on the fact that the amount of assessment and the amount of income were the same and the conclusion was drawn that the Inam grant comprised only of the revenue assessment, i.e., of melvaram rights. We are unable to follow thethey are Archakas they actually asserted an adverse right in the face of the honest admission of their predecessors in title, made in the Inam statement Exhibit D-3. Such conduct cannot but be regarded as disentitling them from any claim founded on equity. The explanation put forward for the first time in paragraph 7 of their present statement of case filed in this Court explaining the absence of a claim to the property by their predecessors at the time of the Inam Inquiry namely, respect for the deity enjoined by Agama Shastra is not at all convincing. Further, the giving of such equitable relief must depend on questions of fact, namely, the income of the property, the reasonable expenses and remuneration for the services, the amounts appropriated by them all this time and so forth which have not been investigated into in this case, because, no doubt, this question of equitable relief has been put forward as a last resort after having lost their battle. We do not think in the circumstances of the case any indulgence should be shown to the Archakas even if it were permissible for the Court in a suit of this description to give such relief.