THIRULAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of an order of the Subordinate Judge, 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 Neighbourhood 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 sthanigam and paricharagam service in Kallalagar temple. The executive officer of the Kallalagar devastanam contended that he inam was granted only in favour of the temple for the performance of the services of sthanigam and paricharagam and that the devastanam 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, therefore, approach the Government for necessary relief. The lower court negatived the claim of the devastanam holding that the grant was not in favour of the devastanam and that he devastanam 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. 453 of 1967 and the executive officer, kallalagar devastanam, has filed A. S. 820 of 1967.

(3.) THE court below held that what was granted was only melwaram only 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 both warams and that on a proper reading of the two appellants is that the court below erred in holding that the grant was only of the melwaram and not 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 both warams.