SRI NEELAKANTA RAJENDRA PATRO Vs. BALAJI PATRO MONDOLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question for decision in this second appeal relates to the claim by the trustees of Jagannadhaswami temple at Udayagiri, Ramagiri Taluk, in the Agency Tracts of the Ganjam District, to recover four garces of paddy annually for the temple from the Mandolo or the Muttadar of Titisingi Mutta in the same taluk. The said mutta is held by an officer called the Muttadar who, according to the usage, is appointed by the Government, the office being recognized more or less hereditary. The officer is remunerated by the emoluments derived mainly from the income of Titisingi Mutta. The claim is thus laid in the plaint: The plaintiff and defendant 2, as well as their ancestors who are Patros of Ramagiri-Udayagiri Mutta, used to collect from Balaji Patro Mondolo, defendant 1, as well as from his ancestors of the Titisingi Mutta, four garces of paddy for the Amrutha Monohi (daily offerings) of the said deity . . . Balaji Mondolo who at present holds the office of Mondolo of the Titisingi Mutta of this taluk has, as per records, to deliver on the day of Pongal every year four garces of paddy a year with the measure current in the country . . . This had been going on from generation to generation.

(2.) Defendant 1 in his written statement filed on 17 July 1925 stated that he was either bound to pay Rs. 300 in cash to the zamindar of Bodokimedi or four garces of paddy, and as he had to pay Rs. 300 in cash to the said zamindar he was not bound to give four garces of paddy. In the written statement filed on 10 September 1925 he stated that the payment was purely voluntary and could not support a legal claim, that the income derived from Titisingi Mutta formed the emoluments of the office of Mutta head and was inalienable and therefore any claim for payment out of such emoluments was unenforceable in a Court of law. The defendants adduced no evidence, either oral or documentary, but the plaintiff examined a number of witnesses and also filed certain documents. The oral evidence was believed by the Courts below. The facts that can be said to have been established from the oral testimony are that the main source of income for the maintenance of the deity is four garces of paddy paid annually by the Muttadar of Titisingi Mutta, that the said payment has been made from a time long before living memory and, at any rate, by the defendants family ever since their connection with the Titisingi Mutta, that whoever held the office of the Muttadar of Titisingi Mutta had to make this payment to the trustees of the temple, that the ryots used annually to come and deliver the said four garces of paddy and that the same has been utilized for the daily offerings to God and for the maintenance of the temple servants. Defendant 1 also admitted that this was made by virtue of a custom which has been long prevalent. In his letter to the Deputy Tahsildar dated 18 January 1925, he made the following statement: We being a Savara tribe my father and grandfather had been making payment according to former custom which has been in vogue till this day, but I consider that I am not liable to make payment.

(3.) It is also in evidence that the Muttadar of Titisingi Mutta, in addition to these four garces of paddy was making a cash payment of Rs. 300 to the zamindar of Bodokimedi. This is also evidenced by what is called Taylor's Memoir which was a record of mamools prepared in 1891 by the then Collector of the District, and in this it is stated that the Patro (Muttadar) pays four garces to Udayagiri Mutta or temple annually. There is also another document which is filed in the case, Ex. D, which purports to be a takid register maintained by the zamindar of Bodokimedi, wherein it is stated that the Muttadar of Titisingi Mutta has to pay Rs. 300 to the zamindar and that he should also deliver paddy necessary for the Sri Jagannadhaswami temple in accordance with the custom. Both the relevancy and admissibility of this document has been disputed in the Courts below, and the same objection has been repeated on behalf of defendant 1 by his learned counsel Mr. Venkatachariar before me. I shall assume the objection to be valid and proceed to deal with the ease on the said footing.