PERIYA MUTHU NAICKER AND ANOTHER Vs. ARULMIGHU SEVANTHEESWARAR KOIL REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE, RENGASAMI NAICKER AND THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed under Sec. 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The lands in question measuring about 17.79 acres are situated in S. No. 218/2 of Manju Veli village, Karur Taluk, erstwhile Trichy District the said land was the subject matter of a memoriam the grant of which was confirmed in T.D. No. 1649. The Fair Inam Register Extract disclosed that it was a Devadayam inam granted permanently for the support of Sevantheeswarar Swam in Pagoda at Periya Manju Veli. The original grant itself was Said to have been in favour of the temple and the inam was confirmed so long as the Pagoda exists. The name of one Chinna Veerayyan was shown as the worshipper of the temple, apparently meaning thereby, that he was the person conducting poojas and therefore, he should have been the Poojari. The inam came to be notified under the Act, and consequently, proceedings were initiated and the Settlement Tahsildar No. 1, Tiruchirapalli, by his proceedings dated 14.6.1966, directed the grant of patta in favour of the appellants under Sec. 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act subject to the conditions imposed therein. Aggrieved, the first respondent - temple filed Inam C.M.A. 16/83 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, V Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both the parties and after adverting to the various recitals in the Inam Fair Register Extract and the documents relied upon by the appellants as the sources of their rights held that the documents as also the Fair Inam Register Extract have to be considered in greater detail to ascertain whether the lands have been conveyed by anyone connected with or as representing the temple and that to enable such consideration to be made, it would be appropriate to remit the matter for a fresh consideration by the original authority. Consequently, while setting aside the proceedings dated 14.6.1996, the matter has been remitted for consideration fresh. On such remand by an order dated 29-2-1984, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, who became the competent authority, took up the matter for consideration and after considering the materials on record in the light of some of the earlier judicial decisions on the point, directed once again the grant of patta in favour of the appellants under Sec. 8(2)(i)(b) read with Sec. 11(2) of the Act on the ground that the alienation by the poojari was valid one, particularly in view of the fact that there was no information about any independent trustee having been in charge of the administration of the temple. Aggrieved, the temple once again pursued the matter on appeal in Inam C.M. No. 2 of 1986 before the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal/V Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The learned Tribunal below adverted to some of the earlier judicial pronouncements and in the light of the facts disclosed, held that the appellants appear to have purchased the lands from a person, who had no rights to alienate and who did not represent the temple and consequently, the appellants could not be held to have derived valid rights or said to have legally acquired any interest in the property, warranting the grant of patta in their favour. Hence, the Tribunal below set aside the grant of patta in favour of the appellants and directed the grant of patta in favour of the temple under Sec. 8(2)(ii) of the Act by its order dated 11.1.1988. Hence, the above appeal.

(3.) Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that the reference to Chinna Veerayyan as worshiper in an indication that he was Poojari-cum-trustee of the temple and that having regard to the alienation effected by their successor-in-interest, the grant of patta in favour of the appellants under Sec. 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act was on the basis of the mortgage of the year 1883 and the sale in 1919 and the Tribunal below committed a grave error in interfering with the patta granted in favour of the appellants, the learned counsel for the first respondent-temple vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal below that the appellants have not lawfully acquired the title or interest in the lands from the competent person or the inamdar was well merited on the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the decided cases adverted to by the Tribunal below and consequently, no interference is called for in this appeal. The learned senior counsel for the appellants also contended that in respect of small temples in this part of the State, it was a well settled position that the poojari happened to be the Poojari-cum-trustee and therefore, it matters very little as to whether the sale deed refers to the name of temple as such or the documents have been described to have been executed by the said poojari-cum-trustee in his own/name.