GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS Vs. A S NAVANEETHAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings initiated by the authorised officer, for fixing the ceiling area of the respondent under the provisions of Madras Act 58 of 1961, the respondent contended, inter alia, that certain lands have been dedicated to two trusts called "velayutham Pillai Oorani Pilliarkoil Trust" in the village of Seethanendal, and another for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi in the month of Vaikasi in Naganathaswami temple of Nainarkoil, and that they should be excluded from his holding. The Authorised Officer upheld the contention of the respondent as regards the lands dedicated to the Oorani Pilliarkoil trust in Seethanendal, but negatived the respondent's objection as regards the lands said to have been dedicated for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi in Naganathaswami temple of Nainarkoil village.

(2.) THE matter was taken in appeal to the Land Tribunal, inter alia against the rejection of the claim for exclusion of the lands said to have been given to the 8th day Mandagapadi in Naganathaswami temple of Nainarkoil. The Tribunal, while dealing with that point took note of the facts that it was not disputed that the respondent had set apart survey No. 111 (part) consisting of 10 acres of land for the purpose of the 8th day Mandagapadi of Naganathaswami temple, that the special Revenue Inspector when examined by the Authorised Officer had stated that the respondent is regularly conducting the 8th day Mandagapadi for which purpose he has set apart the lands in question, that the entire income from the properties is being used for conducting the said Mandagapadi, that the Karnam of the village and the Executive Officer of the temple had deposed that the respondent is conducting the 8th day Mandagapadi properly and promptly, that neither the respondent nor his family had claimed any interest in the properties in question at any time and that the earlier oral dedication of the property for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi in the temple has been affirmed by the agreement dated 15-9-1955 executed by the respondent in favour of the temple undertaking to conduct the 8th day Mandagapadi festival as usual and that in default of such performance to surrender the lands in question to the temple authorities to enable them to perform the 8th day Mandagapadi from and out of the income from the said lands. The Tribunal, while dealing with the view taken by the authorised officer, says that while the document does not by itself create any trust, it affirms that dedication which the respondent has made in favour of the temple for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi by his conduct.

(3.) ON the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to accept the view of the Land Tribunal in preference to the view expressed by the Authorised Officer. The facts as spoken to by the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent establish that the income from the ten acres of land which is in dispute had exclusively been used for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi and that neither the respondent nor his family claimed any interest in relation thereto and there has been a clear divestiture of the interest or the ownership by the respondent in those properties even when the Mandagapadi was first started. What the agreement dated 15-9-1955 did was to affirm that trust which has been created by the conduct of the respondent. It is true that the agreement proceeds on the basis that the property is given as a security for the due performance of the obligation undertaken by the respondent to perform the 8th day Mandagapadi in the Naganathaswami temple. But the oral evidence adduced in the case clearly establish that this property has been set apart for the performance of the 8th day mandagapaid. Hence though the agreement does not itself constitute dedication, there has been an earlier dedication which has been only affirmed by the agreement in question.