Holding

The temple’s devadayan religious inam comprises both melwaram and kudiwaram rights, and under Section 44 the presumption stands, so the appellants cannot obtain Ryotwari patta under Sections 8(1) or 8(2)(i)(b), and the High Court’s grant of patta to the temple is affirmed.

Summary

The Sri Kari Varadaraja Perumal Temple held a devadayan religious inam of 19.58 acres, granted permanently and confirmed by a title deed in 1863. After the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 abolished minor inams, both the temple and the appellants applied for Ryotwari patta. The Settlement Tehsildar initially granted the appellants patta under Section 8(2)(i)(b) based on 12 years' possession, and the Inam Abolition Tribunal later granted patta under Section 8(1) on the ground that the temple possessed only melwaram rights. The High Court reversed these orders, holding that the temple’s religious inam includes both melwaram and kudiwaram rights, invoking the statutory presumption of Section 44, and that the appellants failed to prove any sale alienation. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, rejecting the appellants’ claims of adverse possession and the applicability of Sections 8(1) and 8(2)(i)(b), and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

The scope of Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, 1963 with respect to religious inams and whether it presumes both melwaram and kudiwaram rights in favour of the temple.
Whether the appellants could obtain Ryotwari patta under Section 8(1) based on alleged adverse possession and continuous possession.
Whether Section 8(2)(i)(b) applies to the appellants in the absence of proof of sale alienation.
Whether the claim of adverse possession is barred by Section 3(g) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963s. 3(g), s. 44, s. 8(1), s. 8(2)(i)(b)

Subjects

minor inamdevadayan religious inamRyotwari pattaSection 44 presumptionadverse possessionTamil Nadu Minor Inams Actmelwaramkudiwaramland settlement

Judgment

A A.T.S. CHINNASWAMI CHETTIAR ETC.
v.
SRI KARI VARADARA.IA PERUMAL TEMPLE AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 22, 1995

B
[N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, J.J.)

Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conve1sio11 into Ryotwaii)
Act, 1963: Sections 3(g), 8(1), 8(2) (i)(b), 44-Land given to a temple as
C Devadayan1 Religious Inan1 of pennanenl character and cvnji'nned under a
Title deed-Abolition of Minor lnan1s-Alie11ation clai111ed-Patta granted to
the paity under S.8(2}(i)(b)--On appeal, Tiibunal ww1ted patta to the pmty
under S.8( l )-High Cowt revm·ed the findings and granted patta in favour
of Temph-Held, sale not proved-Stallltmy presumption in favour of
temple-High Cowt 1ightly granted paua to temple.
D
The first respondent-temple \Vas the grantee of a minor inam com ..
prising of lands to the extent of 19.58 acres. It was a devadayam religious ,
inam of' a permanent character given rent-free for the support of the
temple, and was confirmed under a title deed. Minor inams were abolished
and Ryotwari settlement was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam
E (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The appellants and
first respondent-Temple asked the Settlement Tehsildar to issue the Ryot-
wari patta in their favour as regards the lands in their respective posses-
sion. The appellants in particular contended that the first
respondent-temple had lost possession of the loam lands soon after the
F grant as the lands were alienated by the pujari of the temple in whose
favour the lnam Commissioner conferred the grant. Though no sale deed
was produced, the appellants relied on a partition deed between three
members of a joint family.

The Settlement Officer granted patta to the appellants under
G S.8(2)(i)(h) of' the Act holding that the ap1iellants were in continuous
possession of the lands for more than 12 years before 1.4.1960. Not
satisfied with this, the appellants preferred appeals to the Minor lnam
Tribunal claiming patta under S.8(1) of the Act, contending that the
temple had only melwaram interest and that the appellants alone were
H entitled to kudiwaram interest, thus entitled to Ryotwari patta. The
30
AT.S. CI-JINNASWAMJ CHETTIAR v_ K.V. PERUMAL TEMPLE 31

Tribunal granted patta under S.8(1) of the Act in favour of the appellants. A

The first respondent-temple preferred appeals and the High Court
reversed the findings and granted patta i11 favour of' the temple. Hence
these appeals. It was contended that in view of the partition deed of the
year 1888; the subse<Juent sale deeds and continuous possession of the
lands, it was established that the appellants were in continuous possession B
and enjoyment of the lands, and therefore, they must be given Ryorn·~ri
patta under Section 8(1) of' the Act on the basis of' prescription of title to
' kudiwaram right by adverse possession; and that the view taken by the
Tribunal that the grant in favour of the temple was only of melwaram
interest was correct and the contrary finding given by the High Court was C
not sustainable.

The Respondents contended that there was nothing on record to
show that the inamdar or any person claiming through him has legally
parted with the title to the land; all the documents produced by the
appellants were only transactions among the transferees without estab- D
lishing \.Vho the original transferor was, and as such Section 44 of the Act
\Vas attracted and the necessary presumption was that the grant in favour
of the temple was both warams/iruwaram.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court E
HELD : 1. The Settlement Tehsildar though negatived the contention
of the appellants that by reason of the partition deed dated 17.2.1888 and
subsequent numerous sale deeds, It must be deemed that the first respon-
dent had parted with disputed lands, has granted Ryotwari patta under
Section 8(2) (i) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor loam (Abolition and Conver- F
"
'
sion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 on the ground that the appellants were in
possession of the lands in question for a continuous period of 12 years
immediately before the 1st April, 1960. This view of the Settlement Tehsil-
dar was rightly set aside by the High Court in view of the admitted fact that
the appellants miserably failed to establish that the first respondent temple G
(inamdar) has transferred the lands by way of sale and mere possession of
lands for the said period will be of no avail. The Settlement Tehsildar has
rightly held that the first respondent was granted a devadayam religious
inam of a permanent character consisting of iruwarams (both mel-
waram and kudiwaram). This position is also strengthened/supported by
the statutory presumption in fayour of religious institution like the H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 1st respondent herein as per Section 44 especially in the premise of
appellants' failure to prove the contrary. Once the position that the first
respondent temple was granted both warams, the claim of the appellants
that they must be granted Ryotwari patta under Section 8(1) must fail as
there is no scope for invoking Section 8(1) by the appellants in view of
Section 8(2) and also on the facts of these cases. [37-D-G]
B
Bagawathi Aiman Temple v. 10ishna Gmmdm; (1949) 2 MW 609;
Pe1ia Alagwwdhiaman Oil & Ors. v. 1he Settlement Tehsildm; Coimbatore
& Ors., STA No. 21(1976) and Sri Ayirathan Vinayakar Temple,
Anonughamangalam v. State of Tamil Nadu & 01'·., STA No. 103(1975)
C (both cases decided by the Madras High Court), distinguished.

2. After coming into force of the Act, the right, title and interest in
minor inam lands vested free from encumbrances with the Government and
Ryotwari pattas had to be claimed only under the provisions of the Act and
not outside the Act. If this position is borne in mind, and in view of Section
D 3(g) the claim ofadverse possession cannot be countenanced. [38-D]

3. Thus, the Settlement Tehsildar and the loam Abolition Tribunal
fell into two different types of errors for granting Ryotwari patta to
'
appellants under Section 8(2)(i)(b) and Section 8(1) respectively which
E errors have been rightly removed and set right by the High Court. [40-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2476-78
of 1978.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.76 of the Madras High
F Court in S.T.A. Nos. 174, 181 and 210 of 1974.

A.T.M. Sampath, for the Appellants.

Siva Subramaniam, P.N. Ramalingam for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. VENKATASWAMI, J. These three appeals arise out of the com-
mon judgment and order made in S.T.A. Nos. 174, 181 and 210 of 1974 on
the file of the Madras High Court.

H The brief facts leading to these appeals as noted in the High Court
AT.S. CHINNASWAMI CHEITIAR "· KV.PERUMAL TEMPLE [K VENKATASWAMJ,J.] 33

judgment are the following : A

The first respondent-temple was the grantee of a minor inam com-
prising of lands bearing old S. Nos. 173 and 175 of the total extent of 19.58
acres in Pollachi village. The terms of the original grant as such were not
available, however, the Inam fair register produced in the proceedings
B
showed that the grant 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 the title deed No. 161. By the Tamil Nadu
Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963,
(hereinafter called the Act) minor inams were abolished and Ryotwari
settlement was introduced. The Settlement Tehsildar No. II Gobi Chet- C
tipalayam initiated an enquiry for the purpose of grant of a Ryotwari patta
under the provisions of the said Act. The appellants herein and also the
first respondent temple appeared before the said settlement Tehsildar and
asked for Ryotwari patta to be issued in their favour in regard to the lands
in their respective possession. The appellants in particular, contended D
before the settlement Tehsildar that the first respondent temple had lost
possession of the Inam lands soon after the grant as the lands were
alienated by one Thirumalai Ayyan, pujari of the temple in whose favour
the lnam Commissioner had conferred the grant. Be it noted that no sale
deed by the said individual was produced by the appellants before the E
Settlement Tehsildar at the time of the enquiry, nor before the appellate
authority or before the High Court or even before this Court. Instead the
appellants placed. strong reliance on a partition deed dated 17.2.1888
between three members of a joint family by name Kuppanna Mudaliar,
Marianna Mudaliar and Lakshmana Mudaliar. Placing reliance on the
F
recitals in the said partition deed and also the sale deeds subsequent to
the said partition deed executed by the successors-in-interest of the said
joint family members, the 'appellants contended that the temple had lost its
title to the Inam lands.

Though the Settlement Tehsildar did not agree with the contention G
of the appellants that the partition deeds relied on by the appellants could
be taken as an alienation by the Inamdar of the lands in question, strangely
granted patta to the appellants under Section 8(2) (i)(b) of the Act holding
that the appellants were in continuous possession of the lands for more
than 12 years before 1.4.1960. H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
r
A The appellants not satisfied with the grant of patta under Section
8(2)(i)(b) of the Act preferred appeals to the Minor Inam Tribunal (Prin-
cipal Subordinate Judge) Coimbatore claiming patta under Section 8(1) of
the Act.

Before the Tribunal, the appellants contended that what was granted
B to the temple was only melwaram interest and the appellants alone were
rightfully entitled to kudiwaram interest and on the abolition of Minor
Inams they alone were entitled to Ryotwari patta.

The Tribunal accepting the case of the appellants granted patta
c under Section 8(1) of the Act in their favour.
<
:
Aggrieved by the grant of patta to the appellants, the first respondent
temple preferred further statutory appeals to the High Court which were
heard by a Division Bench and the learned Judges disagreeing with the
conclusions reached both by the Settlement Tehsildar and the Tribunal
D reversed their findings and granted patta in favour of the temple.

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the present appeals are
filed by the appellants.

Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
E submitted that the High Court ought to have accepted the contention of
the appellants raised before it placing reliance on a Division Bench judg-
ment of that Court reported in 1949 (2) MLJ 609 entitled Bagawathi Aiman
Temple v. Klis/ma Goundar. Learned counsel further submitted that in view
of the partition deed of the year 1888, the subsequent sale deeds and
F continuous possession of the lands, it was established that the appellants
were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands, and therefore,
they must be given Ryotwari patta under Section 8(1) of the Act on the
basis of prescription of title to kudiwaram right by adverse possession. He
also submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that the grant in favour
of the temple was only of melwaram interest was correct in the facts and
G circumstances of the case and the contrary finding given by the High Court
is not sustainable. In addition to the judgment relied on by the appellants
before the High Court, learned counsel placed reliance on two other
judgments of the Madras High Court in STA Nos. 21/1976 and 103/1975
entitled Pe1ia Alagunachiamman Oil & 01~. v. The Settlement Tehsilda1;
H Coimbatore & Ors. and S1i Ayiratha11 Vinayakar Temple A1Umughaman-
'f
AT.S. CHJNNASWAMI CHEITIAR ». KV. PERU MAL TEMPLE (K. VEN KATA.SWAMI, J. ( 35

galam v. State of Tamil Nadu & 01''., respectively. A
Contending contra,Jearned counsel appearing for the first respon-
dent Temple invited our attention to Sections 8(2)(i) and 44 of the Act.'
According to the learned counsel, there is nothing on record to show that
the inamdar or any person claiming through him has legally parted with
the title to the lan:d. All the documents produced by the appellants were B
only transactions among the transferees without establishing who the
original transferor was. That being the admitted position, according to the
learned counsel, Section 44 of the Act is attracted and the presumption
that follows is that the grant in favour of the Temple was both
warams/iruwaram. This argument having rightly been accepted by the High c
Court, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent Temple,
there is no case for interference.

Before considering the rival submissions, it will be useful to refer to
some of the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act was enacted as per
Preamble "to provide for the acquisition of the rights of inamdars in minor D
inams in the State of Tamil Nadu and for the introduction of Ryotwari_
settlement in such inams." Section 3(a) explicitly declares inter alia that as
and from the appointed day, the provisions of the Act alone shall be
applicable to the minors inams and that any other existing law on the
subject shall be deemed to have been repealed. Section 3(a) declares that E
all rights created by the inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed
day shall cease and determine as against the Government.

Sections 3(g), 8(1) & (2) and Section 44 read as follows :

Section 3{g) F
"any rights and privileges which may have accrued in the minor
inam to any person before the appointed day against the inamdar
shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the
Government or against the inamdar and every such person shall
be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or G
conferred on him, by or under this Act."

Section 8( I)

"Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) every person who is
lawfully entitled to the Kudivaram in an inam land immediately H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or
not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled
to Ryotwari patta in respect of that land."

Section 8 (2) :

B "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) in the
(Tamil Nadu) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) and in the (Tamil Nadu)
Transferred Territory Incorporation and Unioncorporated Devas-
woms Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu) (Act 30 of 1959), the following
provisions shall apply in the case of lands in an iruvaram minor
c inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institu-
tion or for the performance of charity or service connected there-
with or of any other religious charity -

(i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the
D transferee or his heir assignee legal representative or person deriv-
ing rights through him had been in exclusive possession of such
land;

(a) for a continuous period of sixty years immediately before
the 1st day of April 1960, such person shal~ with effect on and
E from the appointed day, be entitled to a Ryotwari patta in respect
of that land;

(b) for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before
the 1st day of April, 1960, such person shall, with effect on and
from the appointed day, be entitled to a Ryotwari patta if he pays
F as consideration to the Government in such manner and in such
number of instalments as may be prescribed an amount equal to
twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such
land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in
the Schedule and the land revenue on such land;
G
(ii) in the case of any other land, the institution or the individual
rendering service shall with effect on and from the appointed day,
be entitled to a Ryotwari patta in respect of that land.

Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section, "land
H revenue" means the Ryotwari assessment including the additional
A.T.S. CHJ~NASWAMl CHETTIAR '· K. V. PERUMAI.:TEMPLE fK. VENK.ATASWAM!.J.f 37

assessment, \vater-cess and additional \Vater-cess. A

Section 44

"In proceedings under this Act relating lo any inam granted for
the benefit of any religious educational or charitable institution or
granted to any individual for rendering service to a religious, B
educational or charitable institution or for the purpose of render-
ing any other service it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that the inam consists not merely of a grant of the mel-
varam in the land but also the kudivaram therein."

With this background, let us now proceed to consider the cases
c
before us.

As noticed earlier, the Settlement Tehsildar though negatived the
contention of the appellants that by reason of the partition deed dated
17.2.1888 and subsequent numerous sale deeds, it must be deemed that the D
first respondent had parted with disputed lands, has granted Ryotwari

.,
.
patta under Section 8(2)(i)(b) on the ground that the appellants were in
possession of the lands in question for a continuous period of 12 years
immediately before the 1st April, 1960. This view of the Settlement Tehsil-
dar was rightly set aside by the High Court in view of the admitted fact
that the appellants miserably failed to establish that the first respondent
E
temple (inamdar) has transferred the lands by way of sale and mere
possession of lands for the said period will be of no avail.. It may be pointed
out here that the Settlement Tehsildar has rightly held that the first
respondent was granted a devadayam religious inam of a permanent char-
acter consisting of iruwarams (both melwaram and kudiwaram). This posi- F
tion is also strengthened/supported by the statutory presumption in favour
of religious institution like the 1st respondent herein as per Section 44
extracted above especially in the premise of appellants' failure to prove the
contrary. Once the position that the first respondent temple was granted
both warams, the claim of the appellants that they must be granted R yot- G
wari patta under Section 8(1) must fail as there is no scope for invoking
Section 8(1) by the appellants in view of Section 8(2) extracted above and
also on the facts of these cases.

We have seen earlier that the Inam Abolition Tribunal on appeals by
the Appellants herein held that the temple was granted only melwaram H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A and the appellants were lawfully entitled to the kudiwaram and therefore,
entitled to Ryotwari patta under Section 8(1) of the Act. This view of the
Tribunal cannot stand a 1no1nent's scrutiny in view of statutory presumption
provided in Section 44 of the Act. Further the Tribunal for coming to the
above conclusion assumed certain facts which were either not established
or substantiated. Therefore, very rightly the High Court set aside that view
B of the Tribunal. We may also point out that the learned counsel for the
appellants before the High Court factually did not support that view of the
Tribunal and therefore, advanced arguments claiming title to kudiwaram
right based on adverse possession which also did not find favour with High
Court. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated before us the claim
c for Ryotwari patta on the basis of long and continuous possession coupled
with sale deeds following partition deed dated 17.2.1888. Here again, the
contention based on adverse possession is misconceived one. After coming
into force of the Act, the right, title and interest in minor inam lands vested
free from encumbrances with the Government and Ryotwari pattas had to
D be claimed only under the provisions of the Act and not outside the Act.
If this position is borne in mind, there will be no difficulty in rejecting the
contention based on adverse possession. Further in view of Section 3(g)
extracted above, the claim of adverse possession cannot be countenanced.

The High Court has rightly distinguished the case on which reliance
E was placed by the appellants, namely 1949 (2) MU 602 (supra) by pointing
out that that was a case which did not deal with a statute like the present
Act and High Court was called upon in the present case to consider the
grant of R yotwari patta under the provisions of the Act and not outside
the Act. As pointed out earlier, before us two more decisions were cited
F and we find in both the cases the admitted fact was that the alienation was
by the inamdar temple itself. Thal makes all the difference. Therefore,
those decisions will not help the appellants. At the risk of repetition we
may point out that it is an admitted fact that the appellants have failed to
establish that there was any alienation by the inamdar to enable the appel-
lants to claim Ryotwari patta under Section 8(2). The inam in question, as
G found earlier, was an inam granted for the benefit of a religious institution
and so the statutory presumption provided under Section 44 will come into
full play in the absence of the appellants proving anything contrary to get
over the said statutory presumption. In this context, the decision relied on
by the first respondent before the High Court and also relied on before us
H reported in Vol. 87 (1974) Law Weekly p. 652, helps the first respondent
A.T.S. CHINNASWAMI CHETIIAR "'·KV. PERUMAL TEMPLE(K VENKATASWAMI.J.] 39

in sustaining the judgment and order of the High Court. The learned judges A
have clearly pointed out while considering the provisions of Section 8(2)
as follows :

"That provision, in our opinion will not apply to a case of alienee.
The policy of the law, as it stood prior to Madras Act 30 of 1963,
was that alienations by way of sale would be null and void. The
B
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959
and· its precedessors provided for resumption and re-grant of such
>
alienated service inam lands. We have got to approach S.8 in that
content. The policy of the law in respect of alienated religious or
Charitable inam lands is indicated in Sub. S. 2(i) of S. 8. 771e c
alienation should have been made by the inamdar and the trans-
feree or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving
rights through him should have been in exclusive possession for
the period provided by CL (a) or CL (b). These two clauses lead
to different results. If possession with the alienee is proved as D
coming within the ambit of Cl. (b) subject to payment of considera-
tion to the Government as provided by the Section, patta may be
1 granted to the alienee. Where a religious or charitable inam land
had been alienated but possession was not proved as provided in
CL (i) of Sub. S.(2) of S. 8, the alienee will not be entitled to patta."
E
Lastly, one argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appel-
lants remains to be dealt with, namely, that in any event, the appellants are
entitled to have patta under Section 8(2)(i)(b) as granted by the Settlement
Tehsildar even though their claim for patta under Section 8(1) was rejected
by the High Court. This was elaborately dealt with by the High Court and F
while repelling such argument, it observed as follows :

"The entire scheme and structure of the Act as well as the purpose
of constituting the authorities and functionaries under the Act is
to effectively administer the provisions of this Act and to carry out G
the principal objective of introduction of Ryotwari settlements in
the place of the minor inams in the State. In this context, therefore,
we do not think that the rules of procedure applicable to trial of
suits in courts of first instance and the entertainment of appeals
against decree and orders of Court of first instance provided under
the Code of Civil Procedure can al all be regarded as applicable H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A to proceedings under the Act. Mr. Narayanaswami, referred to
section 30(3) of the Acl which lays down lhat the Special Appellate
Tribunal shall, subject to lhe provisions of Section 47-A, have the
same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) when hearing an appeal.
He also referred to us Section 46 of the Act which provides that
B
any order passed by any officer, the Government or other authority
or any decision of the Tribunal or the Special Appellate Tribunal
under this Act" in respect of matters to be determined for the
purpose of this Act shall, subject only to any appeal or revision
provided under this Act, be final. But, we do not regard these
c provisions in the Act as in any, way restricting or limiting our
powers as an appellate Tribunal to determine finally and effectively
the question of issue of Ryotwari patta or any other matter that
may come before us in appeal. Section 46 itself indicates that the
orders to be passed by the Special Tribunals and Appellate
Tribunal shall not be liable to be questioned in a Court of law,
D
thereby implying that while acting under Section 30 the High Court
does not function as a Court of 1aw.n

For the above reasons, we hold that the Settlement Tehsildar and
the Inam Abolition Tribunal fell into two different types of errors for
E granting Ryotwari patta to appellants under Section 8(2)(i)(b) and Section
8(1) respectively which errors have been removed and set right by the High
Court.

In the result, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. How-
ever, there will be no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals dismissed.