MARIMUTHU ALIAS DANIEL AND OTHERS Vs. KALASANTHI KATTALAL TO SRI SANKARANARAYANASWAMI TEMPLE BY ITS MANAGERS, VENKATACHALAM IYER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal. It has gone upon the footing that, even though the Kattalaidar had alienated, still he would be entitled to patta under S.8(2)(ii). That provision, in our opinion, will not apply to a case of an alienee. The policy of the law, as it stood prior to Madras Act 30 of 1963, was that alienations by way of sale would be null and void. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959 and its predecessors provided for resumption and re -grant of such alienated service inam lands. We have got to approach S.8 in that context. The policy of the law in respect of alienated religious or charitable inam lands is indicated in Sub -S.(2) of S.8. The alienation should have been made by the inamdar and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative of person deriving rights through him should have been in exclusive possession for the period provided by Cl.(a) or Cl.(b). These two clauses lead to different results. If possession with the alienee is proved as coming within the ambit of Cl.(b), subject to payment of consideration to the Government as provided by the Section, patta may be granted to the alienee. Where a religious or charitable inam land had been alienated but possession was not proved as provided in Cl.(i) of Sub -S.(2) of S.8, the alienee will not be entitled to patta. The effect of Cl.(ii) in Sub -S.(2) of S.8 is not that, if the alienee has not established possession as required by Cl.(i), stilt if he is rendering service, he will be entitled to patta. Cl.(ii), in our opinion, does not apply to an alienee who has failed to satisfy the tests under Cl.(i) of Sub -S.(2). The expression 'any other land' would take in only the land which has not been alienated. If is only in that context Cl.(ii) carefully uses the words "the individual rendering service." No doubt, those words taken by themselves may include a transferee. But, in the context of the history of Legislation proceeding Sub -S.(2) of S.8, we have to hold that Cl.(ii) of Sub -S.(2) does not comprehend an alienee. If an alienee is not entitled to patta under Cl.(i) of Sub -S. (2) of S. 8, the only other possibility is to grant patta to the institution under Cl. (ii). But if there is somebody who is rendering service without his being an alienee, then, of course, it is left to the discretion of the Tribunal to grant patta either to the institution or individual. The Tribunal below has not borne this view of the law in deciding these matters. Apparently, because of the confused approach to the scope of Sub -S.(2) of S.8, proper evidence has not been directed. Another contention urged before us is that the appellants would be entitled to patta under S.9(1). They claim to be cultivating tenants. Their claim is a matter covered by a different Act and need not be considered under he provisions of Madras Act 30 of 1963. Where lands are either religious or charitable inam lands, they will be covered by S.8 and will not fall within the purview of S.9.

(2.) We set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the appeals to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with the observations contained in this judgment. The appellants will be at liberty to lead evidence before the Tribunal in respect of possession for the purpose of establishing their claim either under Cl.(a) or Cl.(b) of Sub -S.(2) of S.8. If either of the provisions in Cl.(a) or (b) is not satisfied, then under Cl.(ii) of S.8(2) the Tribunal will have to grant patta to the institution itself. No. costs.