K. GOPALASWAMI AYYANGAR Vs. SRI ATHAMANATHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM AT AVIDAYARKOIL BY HEREDITARY TRUSTEE SUBRAMANIA PANDARA SANNADHI, ATHEENAKARTHA OF TIRUVADUTHURA ALHEENAM, TIRUVADUTHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been filed by one Gopalaswami Aiyangar, the defendant in O. S. No. 70 of 1953, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore (O. S. No. 22 of 1951, on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore). The facts were briefly these:

(2.) THAT was a suit filed by Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam of Avidayarkoil, by its hereditary trustee, Sri Subramania Pandarasannadhi, Adheenakartha of the Tiruvaduthurai Adheenam, for recovering Rs. 11,415 -8 -6, being the principal and interest due from the appellant, as damages for use and occupation of the temple lands for fasli 1357 -1360, at Rs. 3 -9 -0 per acre per annum. It was alleged that the suit lands measuring 729 acres 17 cents and lying in three villages Kalagam, Pazhayanagaram and Arasalankaranbai, belonged absolutely to the temple in iruwaram eka bhogam right and did not constitute ryoti lands but were pannai or home farm lands which lay as waste from time immemorial and constituted old waste, and that in fasli 1354, the then Pandarasannadhi, the previous 'trustee of the temple, was trying to reclaim some portions of those lands and to bring them under cultivation, in pursuance of the vigorous grow -more -food campaign initiated by the revenue authorities and encouraged by the H. R. E. Board, but that, as the temple had not the necessary resources, the progress of reclamation, if undertaken by it, would be inappreciable and very slow. The Government were urging for speedy reclamation of these lands and for bringing them to cultivation, as they were irrigable under the Cauveri -Mettur project. The revenue authorities recommended one Srinivasa Aiyangar as a suitable man for taking in hand the reclamation, as the temple was not able to do it by itself. But Srinivasa Aiyangar's offer was not accepted for some reason or other by the then Pandarasannadhi. The Manager of the Thiruvaduthurai Mutt was one V. Krishnaswami Aiyangar then. He was also the legal adviser for the Mutt at Kumbakonam. His grandson was married to the appellant's daughter. Whether the appellant came to know about this scheme for reclaiming the suit lands from his sambandhi Krishnaswami Aiyangar, the Manager, or independently, he made an offer to the Pandarasannadhi, Ex. B -1, dated 31 -7 -1944, to reclaim the land, offering to pay the temple cash rent or a portion of the crop, after the usual remissions and concessions for the earlier years in such cases of reclamation. He requested to be put in possession of the lands forthwith in order to enable him to take advantage of the concessions offered by the Government regarding the water rate and to raise the crops at once. The revenue authorities strongly recommended his application, holding him up as a man of influence and resources and as one who had built a temple in Madras at his own cost and was maintaining it at a great sacrifice. The then Pandarasannadhi was said to have consulted his advocate at Madras regarding his power to grant the prayer in Ex. B -1, without any sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The Advocate replied that it was within the ordinary powers of his management to grant the prayer. Thereupon, the then Pandarasannadhi granted the suit lands on patta to the appellant, after receiving a premium of Rs. 3,000, and delivered the suit lands to the appellant on 21 -8 -1944, under Ex. B -22, in pursuance of his order, Ex. A -3, dated 16 -8 -1944. The rate of rent was not fixed in Ex. A -3 or Ex. B -22. The appellant was told that no rent would be demanded from him for faslis 1354 and 1355, that is, for the first two years. Even in the suit, the rent for those years was not claimed. The then Pandarasannadhi intimated to the H. R. E. Board the orders passed by him in Ex. A -3, and he said wrongly in that communication, Ex. A -5, dated 4 -10 -1944, that the lands granted were service tenure lands. On a further report being called for by the H. R. E. Board, he said that the lands were not service tenure lands, and added that he was himself competent to grant the lease, and that the legal adviser had also told him so on 16 -8 -1944, as shown in Ex. B -24. He then went on to eulogies the efforts of the appellant to reclaim the lands speedily, adding that he had reclaimed 200 acres out of the suit lands within two months, spending of least Rs. 30,000 and a phenomenal amount of time and energy.

(3.) ON 9 -3 -1946, one Rajagopala Aiyar, claiming to be a worshipper in the plaint temple, filed a petition in the District Court under S. 76 (2) of the H. R. E. Act for quashing the order under Ex. A -7 as erroneous, illegal and passed without jurisdiction. The appellant denied having set up Rajagopala Aiyar to file that petition, though the lower Court has opined that he was the man at the bottom of the petition. Whatever it be, the learned District Judge dismissed that petition stating that it was for the appellant to prove in appropriate proceedings that he had occupancy rights in the suit lands. There the matter rested for the time.