Case: Subramania Gurukkal (Dead) Through Muthusubramanis Gurukkal &amp; Others Vs. Shri Patteswaraswami Devasthanam, Perur By Its Executive Officer &amp; Others

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The Settlementm initiated suo motu proceedings under the provisions of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act XXX of 1963) hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the issue of ryotwari patta in respect of service inams in Perur village. After holding the necessary inquiry, he directed the grant of ryotwari pattas with reference to the lands comprised in each inam title deed under Section 8(2) of the Act by treating the lands as iruvaram minor inams granted for the performance of services connected with the Devasthanam, first respondent herein. He ordered that pattas be issued to the service holders under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act holding that Section 8(2)(i) was not applicable as there was no alienation in respect of these lands. While directing that pattas be issued to the service holders such grant was made subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. This direction was necessary in view of Section 8(5) of the Act. Aggrieved by these orders both the service holders and the Devasthanam preferred appeals before the Tribunal questioning the correctness of the orders of the Settlement Tehsildar. Several appeals were preferred before the Tribunal since the identical issues as to whether it was the Devasthanam or the service holders who were actually entitled to pattas arose, they came to be dealt with under a common judgment.4. The main points that arose for determination before the Tribunal werer there was an absolute grant to the Devasthanam ?(2) Whether the grant was of both the varams or only of melvaram ?(3) Whether even if it was an iruvaram grant, the grantee could be deemed to be the Oozhiamdar ?(4) Whether the grant has to be classified as Class II namely, an inam for the service as such or whether it is one coming under the descriptions of Class III in favour of an individual rendering service to the deity ? and(5) Whether it will be sufficient, if the service inam was in favour of the individual, for the Oozhiamdars to merely show that they are the persons in actual possession now of the land rendering service and therefore entitled to patta or whether it is incumbent on them to further show that they were hereditarily entitled to the inam land. In the latter case, they would be obliged to establish the link between them and the original grantee if the grant was to the individual. As inam, in essence, is the grant of land revenue, in most cases, if the kudivaram always vested with the person in possession in the village, neither any grant nor any resumption would affect the occupancy right. In that case, the kudivaram would always vest with the person in possession, and if the service holder continues to do the oozhiam his obligation to do such service would certainly be distinct from his right to kudivaram.On an elaborate consideration of these points the Tribunal ultimately held that the grants were personal to the service holders and not absolute grants in favour of the Devasthanam. The Tribunal was of the view that the grantees were the Oozhiamdars falling under the description of Class III and thus it concludedis only the presentrendering service that would be entitled to ryotwari patta if he is also in possession of the land in respect of these personal service inams which were iruvaram grants."Aggrieved by this judgment several Special Tribunal Appeals (STA) under Section 30 of the Act were preferred to the High Court. The Division Bench posed for its determination the only question as to who was entitled to the issue of ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act, the appellant or the Devasthanam. After referring to the relevantthe High Court set aside the conclusion of the Tribunal (vide its judgment dated April 13, 1978). It held as undery set aside the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal below that the oozhiamdars respondents herein areand that they would be entitled to ryotwari patta on proof of their having been in possession of the lands. Instead we hold that the Devasthanam would be entitled to ryotwari patta being the original grantee. Theo still continue to be in possession of the properties, rendering services to the Devasthanam, would continue to enjoy the lands in lieu of their remuneration from the Devasthanam, so long as they continue to do service. The moment they discontinue to do such services, the Devasthanam would be entitled to take such actions as is open to it under law."n similar appeals came before the High Court, following this judgment, the High Court by its order dated September 29, 1978 allowed the appeal of the Devasthanam, the first respondent herein. Insofar as the service holders are adversely affected by the order of the High Court appeals have been preferred to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
31. This is a case in which the grant consists of both the varams. In other words it is an iruvaram grant. Therefore, it has to be decided whether the original inam grant was made by the previous sovereigns to the Devasthanam for its support or to the Oozhiamdars on condition of their rendering service to the Devasthanam. The question could have been easily answered if the original title deed was forthcoming. But unfortunately in this case the original title deed is lost. It was this which influenced the Tribunal when it commented upon theof the original title deed by the Devasthanam and made the Tribunal draw an adverse inference. But the High Court took the view that even in the absence of the original title deeds, the nature of the grant could be decided by looking into the evidence with regard to the terms of the grant itself and the evidence relating to possession and enjoyment by the service holders. But such possession and enjoyment would be evidence of grant only in the absence of any reliable or cogent evidence with regard to the terms of grant itself. As a matter of fact, in several cases even in the absence of original grant the other evidence was looked into for deciding the nature of grant (vide Narayanamurthy v. Acharyya Sastrulu 47 MLJ 714) or Buddu Satyanarayana v. Konduru Venkatapaiah 1950 AIR(Mad) 586), which was appealed against to this Court in Buddu Satyanarayana v. Konduru Venkatapayya 1953 SCR 1001 : 1953 AIR(SC) 195)). While Mr. Padmanabhan contends that in the absence of the original title deeds the entries in the Inam Fair Register must govern, Mr. K. Prasaran in opposition would urge that such entries alone cannot be held to be conclusive because there is more valuable evidence in this case like Ex.3; and the previous proceedings of the courts like Ex.etc. We will examine the correctness of these arguments before we come to the entries in Inam Fair Register.32. Ex.is dated July 14, 1802 which is a certified copy of the Sanad given to Perur Devasthanam. The salient features of Ex.are : (a) it indicates that the lands in Perur village from the manyam of the temple from a long time; (b) it lists out the oozhiams to which the lands were assigned; (c) it was stated that as the possession in the land was taken over by those doing service there need not be further cultivation by the sarkar kudigal; (d) it mentions that any alienation will be illegal; (e) it further mentions "without any defect in the service, the possession shall be made". This should obviously mean, in our opinion, so long as the service was rendered the land will continue to be in possession of those rendering service; (f) with reference to each oozhiam the word isum is mentioned which means permanent; (g) should there be any alienation by the particular service holder the land was liable to be resumed.33. Though the High Court placed reliance on these documents the Tribunal was of the view that the word Sanad used in these documents could convey no legal implication. It was just an order of the Collector or a circular passed on to the Tehsildar. We do not think this approach of the Tribunal is correct since this is only a supporting document on behalf of the Devasthanam to decide the nature of the grant.34. Then we come to Ex.which came to be marked in the High Court by the consent of the parties. This is dated January 8, 1864. That clearly spells out that it was a title deed granted to the manager for the time being of the Pagoda of Shri Patteswaraswami. It unmistakably says that the Secretary of the State for India in Council, acknowledges the title deed to a Devadayam or Pagoda Inam. The date of original settlement is January 8, 1864 and it was renewed on February 22, 1900.Coming to the entries in column 10, the Inam Fair Register states permanent so long as it is continued. The description in column 10 referring to the inam as permanent instead of hereditary is more consistent with the inam, being a service inam, rather than a personal grant burdened with service. Reliance is placed by Mr Padmanabham on Shri Vallabharaya Swami Varu 1957 AIR(AP) 53) but it has to be observed in that case that column 10 of the Register shows that the grant was hereditary. On the contrary the case Buddu Satyanarayana 1953 SCR 1001 : 1953 AIR(SC) 195) relied upon by Mr. K. Parasaran is apt in this case. It observed at page 1004 as undercopy of the statement filed by the then Archakas before the Inam Deputy Collector was exhibited in this case as Ex. 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 survey numbers. The areas are set out in column 5. The heading of column 7 is where no survey has been made and no assessment fixed by Government, the cess paid by the ryot to the Inamdar, or the average assessment of similar Government land should be entered in column (7). Under this heading are set out the amounts of respective assessments against the three survey numbers totalling Rs.We then pass on the next group of columns under the general heading Description, tenure and documents in support of the Inam. Under column 8 description of Inam is entered the remark For the support of a Pagoda. Now kept up. The entry in column 9 shows that the Inam was free of tax, i.e., Sarvadumbala. Under column 10 headed Hereditary, unconditional for life only or for two or more lives is mentioned Permanent. The name of the grantor as stated in column 11 is Janganna Rao and the year of grant is fasli 1179, A.D. 1770. In column 13 the name of the temple is set out as the original grantee. The name of the temple and the location of the temple are also set out under columns 16 and 17. Turning now to the statement Ex. D/3 caused to be written and filed by the then Archakas during the Inam Inquiry held inSree Somasekharaswami Varu is given as the name of the Inamdar and the present enjoyer. The name of the temple is also set out under columns 3, 5, 6 and 12. Under the heading Income derived from the Inamwhether it is sarvadumbala or jodi. If jodi the amount in column 13 is stated sarvadumbala Inam. Cist according to the rate prevailing in the neighbouring fields. This statement (Ex. D/3) bears the 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 theof the Inam grant. The two exhibits quite clearly indicate that the Inam grant was made in favour of the temple by the grantor 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 the appellants.Therefore the word permanent signifies the grant in favour of the temple. An attempt was made by the appellant to distinguish this case having regard to the other entries, namely, to be confirmed to the party in column 16permanently so long as he continues the performance of the service. It is also argued the entry as permanent in column 10 is by no means decisive and in support of this Thirulakshmi Ammal ((1973) 86 Mad LW 613 : (1973) 2 Mad LJ 317) is cited. It must be remembered that in the Madras case, it was supported by the statement of the Inam Commissioner which is not so in the instant case. Therefore any conclusion arrived at by the Inam Commissioner without the original title deed cannot change the character of the grant as rightly held by the High Court.