BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was by the appellant, against the respondent, the Travancore Devaswom Board, to set aside an order of resumption Ext. P 13 passed by the latter under S.28(3) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The appellant's case was that the property in suit was granted to Areecheril family for past services rendered by it as "Velichapad" in Elankavu Bhagavathi Devaswom, that on the 16th Edavom, 1056, that family gave a hypothecation Ex. P 8, and on the 8th Kumbhom, 1061, a usufructuary mortgage Ex. P 7, to the appellant's tarward, that the tarwad afterwards became full owner by lapse of time, and that the respondent passed Ex. P 13 on the ground that the property was alienated contrary to the provisions of the Act. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and hence this appeal.

(2.) The first question for consideration is whether the grant was in the nature of a personal Inam for past services or was made for future services. Even on the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the services continued to be per formed after the grant was made, which was a long time ago, as may be inferred from Ext. P 1 ozhuku of the year 1012 and Ex. P 3 Vilangiper. The trend of the examination of Pw. 1 on behalf of the appellant was also the same, and to crown all, in a statement. Ext. P 12(a) given by him before the Tahsildar on Devaswom Special Duty, be had admitted that the property was given on Service Inam to Areecheril tarwad for 'thadivettu" service, but that he did not know whether the grantee was still continuing to perform the services and in it he had also prayed, that on resumption the property might be given to him on favourable terms. On the above, there is no room for doubt that the property was given not for past services or by way of personal Inam, but for continued performance of services subsequently to the grant. Under S.28(3) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950,

(3.) On the finding that the property in suit is Service Inam attached to specific services, the alienations made in favour of the appellant's tarwad have to be treated as null and void at the option of the respondent and the power of the respondent to resume the property in such circumstances cannot be denied.