K NEELAKANTAPPA Vs. SARVADHIKARIGAL OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMI MATAM
LAWS(APH)-1955-11-25
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 04,1955

K.NEELAKANTAPPA Appellant
VERSUS
SARVADHIKARIGAL OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMI MATAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SECRETARY OF SLATE V. SRINIVASACHARIAR [REFERRED TO]
SHERFUDIN V. KAIROON BI [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMINARASIMHACHARYULU V. RATNAM [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT BOARD TANJORE VS. M K NOOR MOHAMED ROWTHER [REFERRED TO]
MANTRAVADI BHAVANARAYANA VS. MERUGU VENKATADU [FOLLOWED ON]
KAKARLAPUDI JANIKIRAMARAJU VS. GEDALA APPALASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASWAMI VS. PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
N.CHINNAKANNU PILLAI VS. N.S. SUNDARAM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VARADARAJASWAMIVARI TEMPLE VS. SRI KRISHNAPPA GOVINDA [LAWS(MAD)-1958-7-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These Second Appeals arise out of references made under section 31 (2) of he Land Acquisition Act for a determination of the persons entitled to the compensation for the Kudivaram interest in the lands acquired. The right to receive the amount deposited is the subject of dispute between the inamdar, Sri Raghavendraswami Mutt of Manchala, and the cultivating tenams, the latter claiming to be tenants with permanent rights of occupancy on the ground that the lands were in an " estate " as defined in section 3 (2; (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The learned District Judge, differing from the Subordinate Judge, held that the Mutt was entitled to the compensation deposited by Government and the tenants have preferred these second appeals.
(2.)The finding of the lower appellate Court is based mainly on the entries in the Inam Register and the question is one of the proper inference to be drawn from those entries. There second appeals therefore raise a question of law. Sherfudin v. Kairoon Bi, (1944) 2 M.L.J. 56 : I.L.R. (1945) Mad and Lakshminarasimhacharyulu v. Ratnam., (1947) 2 M.L.J. 289 194 I have to consider the effect of the documents and arrive at a decision as to whether the original inam grant now in question falls within the definition of an "estate" in section 3 (2) (d) of the 'Madras Estates Land Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as amended by Act II of 1945 by the addition of Explanation I. It is unnecessary to reproduce the section as amended or to repeat the reasons that led to the amendment of 1945 which have been discussed in my judgment in Basavayya v. Theerthaswamulu, (1950) 2 M.L.J. 607.. The original sanad under which the inam was granted has not been produced and was not forthcoming even in 1861 at the time of the inam settlement as seen from the entries in the Inam Register, Exhibit A-1, which refer to the absence of the original sanads and the existence of attested copies of five sanads on the Collector's record. The original grant was made in Hiziri 1126 corresponding to fasli 1122 or 1713. A.D. by a Mohamedan ruler of that period and the grantee was described " as the fourth priest " of Raghavendraswami Matam at Manchala. Reference is also made in column 12 of Exhibit A-1 to later sanads of 1751, 1761, and 1798 to the 5th, 6th and 8th priest? of the Matam. These entries do not mean that the different portions of the village of Manchala were granted at different times to successive incumbents of the Matam, for it was the general practice of the Mahamedan rulers to renew their grants to the successors of the original grantee on each occasion when the succession opened, treating the grant as tenable only for the life of the grantee and each of his successors. In column 13, of Exhibit A-1 relating to the name of the original grantee, the entry is " Sri Raghavendraswami Matam or Brindavanam at Manchala " and in column 8 relating to the description of the inam, the entry is as follows :- "For the support of Raghavendraswami Matam at Manchala. The object mentioned in the grant is to support the expenses of lighting, supplying odours and flowers to the institution." In columns 14 relating to the name entered in the register kept under Regulation 31 of 1802 the entry is " Entire Agraharams not usually entered in the inam accounts." Pausing here, it might be mentioned that Exhibit A-34 the extracts from the Inam Register for all the inams in the village, show that there were 75 inams in the village of Manchala of which the inam in favour of Sri Rahavendraswami Mutt was dealt with as case No. i by the Inam Commissioner, the remaining 74 cases relating to the other inams in the same village being separately dealt with at the same time. The total extent of the inams in the village according to Exhibit A-34 was about 3,500 acres out of which the inams numbered as cases 2 to 75 comprised about 1,800 acres and the inam with which we are concerned comprised 1,335 acres 85 cents, including some service inams but excluding poramboke. From the above entry in column 14 of Exhibit A-1, it cannot be said that the grant in favour of the Mattam was of the entire area of the village of Manchala. It is possible that by reason of these inam grants being Badshahi grants, they were not entered in the registers kept under Regulation 31 of 1802. Reliance has been placed by the appellants' advocate on the entry in column 21 of Exhibit A-1 relating to the Deputy Collector's opinion and recommendation which runs as follows :-" As it is clear that the institution as the grantee of the enrire village is entitled to all in it but the old inams, I have included in the settlement at the desire of the present priest the poramboke land also that is not yet included in the ayakut that there may be no future dispute regarding it." Column 22 of Exhibit A-1 contains the decision of the Inam Commissioner's Special Assistant which was as follows :-" Confirmed as recommended. Omit poramboke in the title deed." This decision was approved and confirmed by the Inam Commissioner. From these entries it was argued that the grant in favour of the Matam was of the whole village of Manchala and that it was on this basis that the Deputy Collector recommended the inclusion of porambokes in the inam settlement with the Mutt. The higher authorities, however, did not apparently share the opinion of the Deputy Collector for they expressly directed the exclusion of the poramboke from the confirmatory grant evidenced by the inam title deed. It is unfortunate that even in the inam title deed has not been produced, though it is possible from the entries in Exhibit A-1 to arrive at a decision as regards the nature and extent of the inam grant. It is clear that the poramboke could not have been included in the inam title deed in the face of the express decision of the Inam Commissioner.
(3.)Learned counsels on both sides referred to several decisions expounding the principles in the light of which these second appeals should be decided. I do not propose to refer to all of them but shall state briefly the result of the case law. The burden of proving that lands granted in inam are comprised in an " estate " as defined in section 3 (2) (d) of the Act, is upon the person setting up the plea. Whether the question arises in a suit for ejectment of a tenant or for recovery of rent from him in a civil Court or in a proceeding like the present where the Court has to adjudicate upon and declare the respective rights of landlord and tenant to a fund placed in the custody of the Court, the burden of proving, in a disputed case, that the lands in question are comprised in an " estate " as denned in sections (2) (d) of the Act is on the person setting up that plea. This is clear from the observation of Mahajar, C.J., based on the admission of counsel and of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., irrespective of such admission in District Board of Tanjore v. Noor Mahomed,(1952) 2 M.LJ. 586. (S.C.) a decision of the Supreme Court. A tenant relying on section 3 (2) (d) read with Explanation I, has to establish either that the entire extent within the boundaries of a village was granted in inam or that a village was expressly granted by name. In the later case the existence of minor inams or lands reserved for communal purposes from a date anterior to the date of the grant would not make it any the less the grant of a whole village. Basavayya v. Thetrthaswamulu ,(1952) 2 M.LJ. 586. (S.C.) Janakiramaraju v. Appalasami, (1954) 2 M.L J. 773: I.L.R. (1954) Mad. 980 District Board of Tanjorev. Noor Mahomed Rowther.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.