Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R. Gopalaswami Iyengar and K.N Balasubramanian for Applt.
  • The Govt., Pleader and R. Desikan, R. Rajagopalan, T.R Mani, K. Sambasankara Rao, A. Sundaram Iyer, K. Sarvabhauman, S. Narayanan, R. Muthukumaraswami, T.R Ramachandran and T.R Rajagopalan for Respts.
Judges
  • Ismail
  • Palaniswamy, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R. Gopalaswami Iyengar and K.N Balasubramanian for Applt.
  • The Govt., Pleader and R. Desikan, R. Rajagopalan, T.R Mani, K. Sambasankara Rao, A. Sundaram Iyer, K. Sarvabhauman, S. Narayanan, R. Muthukumaraswami, T.R Ramachandran and T.R Rajagopalan for Respts.
Judges
  • Ismail
  • Palaniswamy, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

These two appeals arise from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An area of 2 acres 49 cents in R.S. No. 169/1, Tallakulam village, Madurai Taluk, was acquired for the Madurai-Neighburhood Project. Rival claimants sought the compensation payable on acquisition.

The principal claimants and contentions recorded in the opinion are:

  • First claimant Thirulakshmi Ammal claimed the entire compensation, asserting that both warams in the land had been granted in inam to her husband's ancestors for performing Sthanikam and Paricharakam services in Kallalagar Temple.
  • The Executive Officer of the Kallalagar Devasthanam contended that the inam was granted only in favour of the Temple (Devasthanam) for performance of the services and that the Devasthanam alone was entitled to compensation under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963.
  • Other claimants asserted that the grant was only melwaram in favour of the ancestor of the first claimant and that they (the persons in possession) held kudiwaram interests and hence were entitled to the entire compensation after abolition of minor inams.

The Acquisition Officer had made the reference under Section 30 because of the rival claims. The Court below held that the first claimant was not entitled to the compensation as a grantee but only to statutory allowances under the Minor Inams Abolition Act and directed the Devasthanam to seek relief under that Act; it awarded the entire compensation to the other claimants in certain proportions. Aggrieved, appeals were filed. The opinion records appeal numbers in multiple places: paragraph 2 records A.S. No. 459 of 1967 (first claimant) and A.S. No. 820 of 1967 (Executive Officer); the concluding paragraph records A.S. No. 453 of 1967 (allowed) and A.S. No. 920 of 1967 (dismissed). The text itself contains these references and they are reported here exactly as presented in the opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the original inam grant was of melwaram only, or of both melwaram and kudiwaram (i.e., the nature and subject of the original grant).
  2. Which party is entitled to the compensation payable on acquisition — specifically whether the first claimant, the Devasthanam, or the persons in possession (claiming kudiwaram) are entitled to the entire compensation or to statutory allowances under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963.
  3. Whether, if the inam was of both warams and the first claimant is entitled to compensation, the compensation is payable to the claimant for personal use or must be invested under Section 32(1) of the Land Acquisition Act because it is a service inam (inalienable).
  4. Whether the persons in possession could claim entitlement to compensation under the Minor Inams Abolition Act by obtaining a ryotwari patta and thereby receive the entire compensation.

Arguments of the Parties

First claimant (Thirulakshmi Ammal)

  • Claimed the entire compensation on the basis that both warams had been granted in inam to her husband's ancestors for rendering Sthanikam and Paricharakam services in the Kallalagar Temple.
  • Produced a certified copy of the Inam Register (Exhibit A-1) and a certified copy of a statement given by her predecessor in interest Thirumalai Nambi before the Inam Commissioner (Exhibit A-2) to support the nature of the grant.

Executive Officer, Kallalagar Devasthanam

  • Contended that the inam was granted only in favour of the Temple for performance of services and that the Devasthanam alone was entitled to receive compensation under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963.

Other claimants / persons in possession

  • Claimed the entire compensation contending the grant was only melwaram in favour of the ancestor of the first claimant and that they held kudiwaram (occupancy) interests; thus, on abolition of the minor inam they would be entitled to the compensation.
  • Relied on documentary evidence such as partitions, mortgages and receipts (Exhibits B-1 to B-21) showing the persons in possession had dealt with the property and described themselves as holders of kudiwaram or occupier rights.
  • Contended that they might be entitled to ryotwari pattas under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963, and that a ryotwari patta-holder would be entitled to the entire compensation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Arunachalam Chetti v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal (1920) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 253; 37 M.L.J. 460; 46 I.A. 204; 53 I.C. 288; A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 62 The Inam Register is the result of an elaborate State enquiry; its entries (recitals) are to be given the utmost importance as part of the history of the property and as evidence of the nature and quantum of the right recognised. The court relied on this authority to treat the certified copy of the Inam Register (Exhibit A-1) as important evidence about the nature of the grant and to give weight to the register's recitals in determining whether the grant was of both warams.
Sankaranarayana Pillaiyan's case (1947) 2 M.L.J. 315; I.L.R. (1948) Mad. 585; 74 I.A. 230; A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 25 The Privy Council reiterated that entries in the Inam Register are significant evidence about the nature and character of the rights and should be given prominence when other authentic evidence is not available. The court referred to this decision to support its view that when the Inam Register and related statements are clear, they determine the nature of the grant; it used this to reinforce the conclusion that the inam was of both warams.
Secretary of State of India v. Vidya Thirtha Swamigal (1942) 2 M.L.J. 367; I.L.R. (1942) Mad. 893; 69 I.A. 22; A.I.R. 1942 P.C. 21 Entries in the Inam Register and title deeds are evidence of the true intent and effect of the transaction and of the character of the right that was recognised and continued. The court cited this authority (as discussed by the Privy Council) for the proposition that the Inam Register entries indicate the nature and quantum of the right; this supported interpreting Exhibit A-1 as indicating a full inam (both warams).
Periaswami Gounder v. Sundaresa Iyer (1964/1965) (1964) 8 S.C.R. 347; (1965) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 119; A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 546 Entries in the Inam Register are the result of elaborate enquiry; the Inam Statement is one piece of evidence and recitals in the Inam Statement must give place to the Inam Register, harmonising them where possible. The court applied this Supreme Court authority directly: on analysis of exhibits similar to A-1 and A-2, the Periaswami judgment supported concluding that the Inam Commissioner dealt with the entire interest and that the grant covered both melwaram and kudiwaram. The court followed that reasoning in holding the grant in the instant case was of both warams.
Kondayya v. Rama Rao (1966) 1 S.C.R. 842; (1967) 1 S.C.J. 480; (1967) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 97; A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 661 Mere long possession, fixity of rent and assertions of title in certain deeds (where the grant-holder or his descendants are not party) do not justify an inference of permanent occupancy/right by prescription. The court invoked this principle to reject the argument that the persons in possession had thereby acquired kudiwaram title; it held that dealings like partitions, mortgages and receipts (without proof of original grant or adverse possession) did not displace the conclusions drawn from the Inam Register and statement.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through a fact-based and document-focused analysis, applying settled principles about the evidentiary weight of Inam Registers and related inam statements:

  1. Evidence relied upon: The appellants did not produce the original title deed; the first claimant produced certified copies of the Inam Register (Exhibit A-1) and a statement of the then inamdar Thirumalai Nambi given to the Inam Commissioner (Exhibit A-2). The court examined the contents of Exhibits A-1 and A-2 in detail, column by column as recorded in the register and statement.
  2. Weight of the Inam Register and Statement: The court followed the line of Privy Council and Supreme Court authorities (Arunachalam Chetti; Sankaranarayana Pillaiyan; Secretary of State v. Vidya Thirtha Swamigal; Periaswami Gounder) establishing that the Inam Register entries are the product of elaborate State enquiry and are to be given great importance in determining the nature of the grant; where possible the Inam Statement and Register should be harmonised, with the register carrying special weight.
  3. Interpretation of Exhibits A-1 and A-2: The court found that many entries in Exhibit A-1 (classification as "Deva dayam", details of land quality and assessment, description in Column (8) as "For the service of stanikam paricharakam ... Now rendered", and indications of permanent hereditary tenure) are consistent with a grant of both warams rather than melwaram alone. Exhibit A-2 (statement of Thirumalai Nambi) was consonant with Exhibit A-1 and recorded the land as "in my enjoyment" with pedigree tying present holder to original grantee.
  4. Assessment of counter-evidence: The court considered the lower court's reliance on admissions by ancestors of the first claimant describing themselves as melwaramdars and on transactional documents (partitions, mortgages, receipts) by persons in possession describing themselves as kudiwaramdars. The court observed that:
    • Such admissions, even if made by ancestors of the inamdar, would not, by themselves, alter the nature of the original grant recorded in the Inam Register.
    • Dealing with the land by persons in possession (partitions, mortgages, sale) did not establish acquisition of kudiwaram title by prescription or by any lawful conveyance from the grantee. The claimants in possession did not allege acquisition of kudiwaram by adverse possession or by grant from the original grantee.
  5. On the Minor Inams Abolition Act contention: The court rejected the submission that persons in possession would, by obtaining ryotwari pattas under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, be entitled to the entire compensation. It reasoned that although the Minor Inams Abolition Act vests minor inam lands in Government, the Government had initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act on the basis that the lands belonged to others; therefore interests ascertained under the Land Acquisition Act must be applied to determine entitlement to compensation. Moreover, because the court found the inam to be of both warams, the question of obtaining patta in recognition of kudiwaram did not arise for these claimants.
  6. Conclusion from documents and law: Applying the authorities on the weight of Inam Registers and harmonising the register and inam statement, the court concluded that the original grant was of both melwaram and kudiwaram and that the grant was personal to the person preferring the service (i.e., not in favour of the Devasthanam).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that the original inam grant was of both melwaram and kudiwaram, that the grant was personal for the person performing the service and was not in favour of the Devasthanam, and that the entire compensation payable on acquisition is payable to the first claimant.

The opinion states the operative result in its concluding paragraph as follows: "In the result, A.S. No. 453 of 1967 is allowed and there will be a decree in favour of the appellant-first claimant in the terms indicated above. A.S. No. 920 of 1967 filed by the Devasthanam is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their costs in A.S. No. 820 of 1967. The appellant in A.S. No. 453 of 1967 will recover her costs from the contesting respondents therein."

Implications (direct consequences stated in the opinion):

  • Although the entire compensation is payable to the first claimant, because the original grant was made as a service inam and is inalienable, the compensation amount is not payable to her for personal use. Under Section 32(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation must be invested and the first claimant is entitled to receive returns from such investment so long as the service is performed.
  • The Court below is directed to take action for the investment of the compensation; the first claimant is at liberty to move the Court below for such investment.
  • The Devasthanam's appeal was dismissed and the court explicitly held that the inam was not in favour of the Devasthanam; the Devasthanam should, if appropriate, seek allowances under the Minor Inams Abolition Act (as the lower court had indicated), but the Devasthanam is not entitled to the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act on the facts as found by this court.
  • Costs allocations are ordered as recorded in the concluding paragraph.

The opinion does not purport to create a new principle of law beyond applying the cited authorities; it primarily applies established principles regarding the evidentiary weight of Inam Registers and statements to the facts of this case and sets out the direct effects on the parties as described above.

Show full summary ...

    Thirulakshmi Ammal v. The Special Thasildar For L.A Neighbourhood Project, Madurai And Others

    1. These two appeals arise out of art order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An extent of 2 acres 49 cents in R.S. No. 169/1 in Tallakulam village, Madurai Taluk, has been acquired for Madurai-Neighburhood Project. Rival claims were put forward for the compensation amount. Hence, the Acquisition Officer made the reference under Section 30. The first- claimant, Thirulakshmi Ammal, claimed the entire compensation-contending that both warams in the land had been granted in inam to the ancestors-of her husband for rendering Sthanikam and Parichurakam service in Kallalagar Temple. The Executive Officer of the Kallalagar Devasthanam contended that the inam was granted only in favour of the Temple for the performance of the services of Sthanikam and Pancharkam and that the Devasthanam. alone was entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963. The other claimants claimed the entire compensation contending that what was granted was only melwaram in favour of the ancestor of the first claimant, that they were entitled to the kudiwaram interest and that, therefore, they were entitled to the entire compensation consequent on the abolition of the minor inam.

    2. The Court below held that the first claimant was not entitled to any compensation, but was entitled only to claim either Tasdik allowance or some other allowance provided under the Minor Inams Abolition Act and should, there fore, approach the Government for necessary relief. The lower Court negatived the claim of the Devasthanam holding that the grant was not in favour of the Devasthaharn and that the Devasthanam should approach the authorities under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act for necessary allowance. The Court below further held that the entire compensation amount was payable to the other- claimants in certain proportions. Aggrieved by this order, the first claimant, Thirulakshmi Ammal, has filed A.S. No 459 of 1967 and the Executive Officer, Killalagar Devasthanam has filed A.S. No. 820 of 1967.

    3. The Court below held that what was granted was only melwaram on a consideration of the evidence let in by the claimants to whom compensation has been ordered to be paid. The evidence consisted of dealings by those claimants and their ancestors asserting kudiwaram right The Court below also took note of certain admissions made by the predecessors in interest of the first claimant', the appellant in A.S. No : 453 of 1967 stating that they were holders of melwaram right and that the persons in possession-were" holders of kudiwaram right It is on the basis of such evidence that the Court below found that what was granted was melwaram and not of both warams. The common contention urged on behalf of the two appellants is that the Court below erred in holding that the grant was only of the melwaram and not of both warams and that on a proper reading of the copy of the Inam Register and copy of the inam statement the Court below should have held that the grant was of both the warams. In these circumstances, the substantial question that arises- for consideration is whether the grant was of melwaram only or of both warams.

    4. It is settled law that there is no presumption either that the grant was of mel waram only or of both warams. The question as to the subject of grant has to be decided upon the evidence in each case. In this case, the appellants have not produced the original title deed or a copy thereof. But the first claimant has produced a certified copy from the Inam Register, which has been marked as Exhibit A-1 and also a certified copy of the statement given by her predecessor in interest by name Thirumalai Nambi in Fasli 1272 at the time of the Inam Commission enquiry, which has been market as Exhibit A-2. The evidentiary value of the recitals in Inam Register was the subject of observation by the Judicial Committee in Arunachalam Chetti v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal (1920) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 253 : 37 M.L.J. 460 : 46 I.A. 204 : 53 I.C. 288 : A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 62, in which it was held It is true that the Making of this register was for the ultimate purpose of determining whether or not the lands were tax free. But it must not be forgotten that the preparation of this-register was a great act of State and its preparation and contents were the subject of much consideration under elaborately detailed reports and minutes. It is to be remembered that the Inam Commissioners through their officials made enquiry on the spot, heard evidence and examined documents, arid, with regard to each individual property the Government was put in possession not only of the conclusion dome to as to whether the land was tax free but of a statement of the history and tenure of the property itself. While their Lord. ships do not doubt that such a report would not displace actual and authentic evidence of individual cases, yet the Board when such is riot available cannot fail to attach the utmost importance as part of the history of the property to the information set forth in the Inam Register.

    In Sankaranarayana Pillaiyan's case (1947) 2 M.L.J. 315 : I.L.R. (1948) Mad. 585 : 74 I.A. 230 : A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 25, the Privy Council reiterated the same position and observed:

    The question arose in a recent case before this Board with reference to a Madras inam (see Secretary of State of India v. Vidya Thirtha Swamigal (1942) 2 M.L.J. 367 : I.L.R. (1942) Mad. 893 : 69 I.A 22 : A.I.R : 1942 P.C. 21, where it was held that the title deeds and the entries in the Inam Register are evidence of the true intent and effect of the transaction and of the character of the right which was being recognised and continued. The entries in the Inam Register and the description of the inamdar therein were accepted as indications of the nature and quantum of the right or interest created in the land.

    Following the aforesaid decisions of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court in Periaswami Gounder v. Sundaresa Iyer (1965)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 119 : (l965) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 119 : (1965) 1 S.C.J. 688 : (1964) 8 S.C.R. 347 : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 546, stated:

    As observed by the Judicial Committee the entires made in the said register are the result of an elaborate enquiry based upon oral evidence on the spot enquiry and scrutiny of available accounts and records. The Inam Statement is only one of the pieces of evidence which the Inam commissioner might have taken into consideration in compiling the Inam Register. The recitals in the statement must, therefore, give place to the recitals in the Inam Register, though an attempt shall be made to harmonise them if possible.

    5. As already noticed, Exhibit A-1 is a certified copy of the Inam Register relating to the acquired property in the instant case. It consists of certain major heads, each one of which is divided into several sub-heads. The first major head reads : "Class, Extent and Value of Inam". This major head is divided into seven sub-heads. In Column (2) under the sub-head "General class to which the inam belongs" the entry is" Deva dayam", In column (3) under the head "Survey number and name of field or fields comprised in the grant, dry, wet or garden the particulars of the land are given as "Pallassyi 12 (one crop)". These details-are consistent with the view that the grant was of both warams rather than of being mere melwaram. If it was of melwaram alone, the quality of the land, was quite irrelevant. In column (4). under the heading "Local measure" details are given as "1-12-2". In column (5) under the head "Acres and decimals-English measure" the entry is "2.35". The heading under column(6) is "Survey assessment", whereas the heading under column (7) is "Revised or Present assessment", A combined Heading is made under both these columns' as "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 combined heading no information is given in column (6). But in column (7) the information is given as "13.98" which obviously is the assessment. We next come to the next main head, which reads : "Description, Tenure and Documents in support of the inam". This again is divided into five sub-heads. In column (8) the heading is "Description of inam--If for service it is to be stated whether the service is continued. If for tanks, buildings etc., whether they are efficiently kept up." Under this column we find this entry "For the service of stanikam paricharakam in the pagoda of Alaghar in the Melur Taluk. Now rendered." In column (9) the heading is "whether free of tax i.e., Sarvadumbala etc., or liable to quit rent i.e., jodi kattubadi bediga etc. Amount of latter to be entered". Under this column, the entry is "Average jodi 2.11.7". In column (10) the heading is "Hereditary--unconditional, for life only or for two or more lives". Under that heading the entry is "permanent". In column (11) the heading is : "By whom granted and in what year". No information is given under this column. Column (12) reads as "written instruments in support of the claim". It also inter alia says "In this column it should be stated whether the inam is held with or without grant, whether the grant is produced or lost etc., the general specification of terms of all documents produced, should be given". The entry under this column is "Chitta of fasali 1212, 1217. Extent as F.1212 k.v. .64 2-2. No Excess",

    6. Next we come to the third major head which reads as "Name and relationship of original grantee and of subsequent and present holders--.Length of possession". This again is divided into eight sub-heads. In column (13) the heading is "Name of original grantee" Column (14) reads : "Name entered in the register prepared according to Regulation XXXI of 1802 or in the permanent settlement account and relationship of persons so entered to original grantee". No information is given in column (13). In column (14) the entry reads as : "In a Fasali Tirumalai Nambi. In F. 1217 Ataghiya Nambison." Column (15) deals with the name entered in the survey or in any subsequent accounts and relationship to predecessors. But ho entry is found under this column. The next five sub head's relate to particulars regarding the present owner such as name and age, place of residence, relationship to the original grantee, etc. In columns (16) and 17 the information given is "Mavada Marudur (1) Gnanabhiran Tirumalai Nambi 17". In column (18) the relationship is given as "Great grandson". Column (19) deals with surviving heirs of the present incumbent, whereas column (20) requires information to be given as to possession if the person in possession was not connected with the original holder. Under these columns no information is given. The last major heading is "Remarks", which deals with the Deputy Collector's opinion and recommendation. The entry under this column is ''To be confirmed under rule III clause of Jodi Rs, 2-117".

    6-a. In this case, in addition to the, extract from the Inam Register we have also a copy of the statement given before the Inam Commissioner by the then inamdar,. by name Thirumalai Nambi. A copy of that statement is Exhibit A-2. It is in Tamil. This was given in fasli 1272. It consists of 12 columns of which the important columns are Nos. (2), (7) and (12). In column (2) the heading is "The name of the inamdar as entered and the name of the person in enjoyment". Under this column, the entry is "Own enjoyment--Gnanabhiran Thirumalai Nambiar". The heading in column (7) is Details of the inam, terms and the concise statement of the documents. Under this column, the entry reads "Cawni nilam given to our ancestors by the then Rajas for temple service and paricharakam etc. The land is in my enjoyment". In column (12) the heading is "Enjoyment". Under this column the entry reads : "As shown in column (2)". Along with the statement, Thirumalai Nambi also gave a pedigree showing how he was the descendant of Alagirinambi, who is stated to be the original grantee, as entered in column (14) of Exhibit A-1.

    7. It would thus be seen that the relevant entries in the statement Exhibit A-2 are entirely in consonance with the details given in the Inam Register. We have made elaborate reference to the contents of Exhibits A-1 and A-3. as the original title deed is not available. As we have already pointed out, the preparation of the Inam Register is an important act of State and the compilation was as a result of an elaborate enquiry based upon oral evidence, on the spot enquiry and scrutiny of. available accounts and records. It is important to note that neither in Exhibit A-1 nor in Exhibit A-2 is stated that the land was in possession of anybody else. If the land was in the possession of anybody other than the person who gave the statement, it is unlikely that the Inam Commissioner, in the course of the enquiry, would have failed to notice that fact, It is reasonable to infer that the Inam Commissioner accepted the statement of the person who claimed to be in possession and based upon that information he recorded in Exhibit A-1 that the land was in the possession of the great grandson of the original grantee. In Periaswami Gounder v. Sunitaresa Iyer , to which we have already made reference, an extract from the Inam Register similar to Exhibit A-1 was considered to find out whether the grant was of melwaram only or of both warams. The entries in that register were almost similar to those found in Exhibit A-1. The Supreme Court held that on a reasonable interpretation of the various recitals in the Inam Register extract, the only possible conclusion was that the Inam Commissioner was dealing with the entire interest in the land and that the inam was of both melwaram and kudiwaram. Having regard to the clear recitals in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 we have no doubt whatsoever that the grant in the instant case was of melwaram and kudiwaram. We also hold that the grant was personal for the person preferring the service and it was not in favour of the Devasthanam.

    8. The Court below took the view that the grant was of melwaram only having regard to two circumstances. One was that the ancestors of the first claimant had described themselves "as only melwaramdws and described the persons in possession as kudiwaramdars, thereby clearly admitting that they had only melwaram. The second circumstance was that the persons in possession had dealt with the property by partition and mortgage as their own, thereby showing that they were entitled to kudiwaram right. The Court below therefore held that what should have been granted was only melwaram. But the Court below failed to examine the various entries in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 to find put what was the subject of the original grant. It is true that there are certain statements made by the ancestors of the first claimant to the effect that they were melwaramdars and that persons in possession were kudiwaramdars. Exhibit B-13 is a copy of the plaint in S.C. No. 1380 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Madurai Town, filed on behalf of minor Thirumalai Nambi by his next friend one Srinivasa Iyengar. That suit was instituted to recover a certain amount which was collected by the Government from the inamdar by way of penalty for using water from a tank called Managiri Tank by unlawfully cutting the bund of that tank by those who were in possession. In that plaint it was no doubt alleged that the plaintiff therein was entitled to melwaram from the defendants therein in the shape of paddy and other grains. It was also-alleged that the persons who were in possession were cultivators and holders of occupancy rights. Exhibits B-1 to B-4 are receipts issued by the ancestor of the first claimant describing himself as melwaramdar and describing the persons in. possession as "Umuvadaidhar". Strong reliance was placed upon these admissions as supporting the view that what should have been granted originally was of melwaram only. The Counsel appearing for the persons in possession, whose claims have been upheld by the Court below, however, conceded before us that if the original grant was both warams, such admissions would not confer title upon the persons in possession who claimed kudiwaram right, for, mere admission would not confer title. Perhaps the inamdar having let the property to tenants collected rent from them and issued the receipts under the misapprehension as to the exact nature of his rights and the rights of those in possession.

    9. It is also true that the persons in possession have dealt with the property as owners of kudiwaram right by partition, as seen from Exhibits B-6 and B-12, and by executing mortgage deeds, as seen from Exhibits B-5, B-10, B-11, B-14, B-19 B-20 and B-21. There was also one transaction of sale as seen from Exhibit B-8. Under all these documents, the executants claimed kudiwaram right. It is not the case of those who claimed kudiwaram right that they had acquired title to kudiwaram right by prescription ; nor is it their case that subsequent to the original grant of two warams in favour of the ancestor of the first claimant, the kudiwaram right was conveyed to them. It may be that the same persons were allowed to continue in possession without interruption, and on the basis of long possession, the persons in possession appear to have thought that they were entitled to deal with the kudiwaram right. But it is not the case of these claimants that the original grant' was in respect of both warams, and that in spite of the grant of both warams, their ancestors and themselves were in enjoy-ment of kudiwaran right adversely to the grantee and had prescribed title By adverse possession. The Counsel for these claimants frankly conceded before us that the claim to kudivaram is not based upon adverse possession. Nor is there any room to draw a presumption of origin in some lawful title in favour of these persons. Such a presumption of origin in some lawful title would arise only where no actual proof of title is forthcoming. Such a rule would have to be resorted to if there is absence of actual evidence. But If there is actual and convincing proof of the nature of the grant, the rule can hardly have any application vide Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Madras (1947) 2 M.L.J. 315 : I.L.R. (1948) Mad. 585 : 74 I.A. 230 : A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 25. We may observe in this connection that it is not the case of the persons in possession that they have become entitled to the kudiwaram right either by custom or by any grant from the original grantee; nor is it suggested that we should draw a presumption of origin in some lawful title, for, there is no room for drawing such a presumption for the reason that we have ample evidence to show that the grant Was of both warams. Mere long possession, fixity of rent and assertion of title in certain deeds, to which neither the grantee nor his descendants were parties, would not justify an inference of permanent occupancy right, vide Kondayya v. Rama Rao (1966) : 1 S.C.R. 842 : (1967) 1 S.C.J. 480 : (1967) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 97 : (1967) 1. An.W.R. (S.C.) 97 : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 661.

    10. It was contended on behalf of those in possession that they would be entitled to ryotwari patta under the provisions' of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963, and that if such a patta is obtained, the holder of the patta would be entitled to the entire compensation. We do not accept this contention. No doubt under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, persons satisfying certain conditions with regards to kudiwaram in an inam are entitled to ryotwari pattas. Under that Act, minor inams are abolished and all the lands in such inams have Vested in the Government. But in this case, not-withstanding such vesting, the Govern-ment have invoked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis that the lands do not belong to the Govern-ment but belong to others. Therefore, the provisions of that Act should be applied in ascertaining the interests of the persons entitled to the compensation; We may also point out in this connection that the question of obtaining patta in recognition of kudiwaram right does not arise in view of our finding, that the inam was of both waram.

    11. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the grant was of both melwaram and kudiwaram and that the entire compensation is payable only to the first claimant. But inasmuch as the original grant was made as service inam, it is inalienable and therefore the first claimant is not entitled to receive the compensation amount for her own use. Under Section 32 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation amount should be invested. So long as the service is performed the first claimant would be entitled to receive the return, from such investment. The Court below will take action for such investment and the first claimant is at liberty to move the Court below in this behalf. In the result, A.S. No. 453 of 1967 is allowed and there will be a decree in favour of the appellant-first claimant in the terms indicated above. A.S. No. 920 of 1967 filed by the Devasthanam is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their costs in A.S. No. 820 of 1967. The appellant in A.S. No. 453 of 1967 will recover her costs from the contesting respondents therein.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Thirulakshmi Ammal v. The Special Thasildar For L.A Neighbourhood Project, Madurai And Others
    (Nov 17, 1972)