Case: T. K. Lakshmana Iyer &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Madras &amp; Ors

1. In the village of Thenkarai in the Madurai District there is an ancient temple of Sri Thirumoolanathaswami. Inams were granted by Hindu kings for performance of services of watchman, palanquin-bearer, background music player, dancing girl, musical instrument player, mason, blacksmith, carpenter, potter, washerman connected with the temple. The inams were confirmed by the British Government. For over 80 years, the inams were in the enjoyment of alienees from inamdars. By an order passed on April 10, 1947 under Sec.44-B of the Madras Hindu Religions Endowments Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti resumed the inam lands and regranted them to the temple. On October 17 1947, his order was confirmed on appeal by the District Collector. The Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector held that the inams comprised both melwaram and kudiwaram rights in the land. The orders were passed on notice to the alienees. The alienees instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai under the proviso to Section 44-B (2) (d) (ii) asking for a decree declaring that the inam grants consisted of the melwaram only. The suit was withdrawn to the Court of the District Judge, Madurai and registered as O. S. No. 3 of 1954. They instituted another suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, asking for a decree declaring that the order of the Collector dated October 17, 1947 was a nullity. This suit was transferred to the Court of the District Judge and registered as O. S. No. 4 of 1954. The District Judge dismissed O. S. No. 3 of 1954. He decreed O. S. No. 4 of 1954 and declared that the order resuming the inam lands was illegal and a nullity. The plaintiffs filed an appeal registered as A. S. No. 746 of 1954 in the High Court of Madras from the decree in O. S. No. 3 of 1954. The High Court, dismissed the appeal. The State of Madras filed an appeal registered as A. S. No. 808 of 1954 from the decree in O. S. No. 4 of 1954. The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with respect to all the inams except the Dasi inam. Regarding the Dasi inam, the High Court dismissed the appeal as the inam was enfranchised and could not be resumed. It is from the decree of the High Court dismissing the suits in respect of the other inams that the plaintiffs have filed these appeals after obtaining special leave.

Court's reasoning:
There is no period of limitation prescribed for the initiation of proceedings under Sec. 44-B (2). The section gave a new statutory right of resumption of the inams. On a resumption of the inams, the title, if any, of all persons claiming through the inamdars to any subordinate interest in the inams stood determined. Kunjanna Ayyar and his successors-in-title were lessees of the inam lands under the inamdars. During the continuance of the tenancy, their possession was not adverse to the inamdars. A fortiori , their possession was not adverse to the Government under whom the inamdars hold the inam lands. They did not acquire any prescriptive title to the kodiwaram rights either against the inamdars or against the Government. The Government could, therefore, resume the inam lands made (sic.) under Section 44-B (2) and dispossess the inamdars and the plaintiffs claiming as lessees under them.The question whether an alienee from the inamdar can acquire prescriptive title to the kudiwaram rights in the inam lands against the Govermnent and thereby defeat the latters right to resume the inam does not therefore, arise for decision, and we express no opinion on it. It may be noted that in 1966-3 SCR 283   at p. 299 = (AIR 1966 SC 1457   at p. 1466) this Court held that there is no limitation barring imposition of assessment on the land after resuming the melwaramIt follows that both the kudiwaram and melwaram rights were rightly resumed under Section 44-B (2) (a) (i).