AYYA NADAR AND ORS Vs. VAIDYANATHASWAMI KOIL DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Letters Patent Appeals are against the dismissal by a common judgment of Second Appeal Nos. 126 to 133 of 1957, on the file of this Court, and confirming the concurrent judgments of the Courts below that the suit properties covered in the inam title deed No. 503 are service inam lands comprising both the warams and that the resumption of the inams by the Collector for default on the part of the service holders to perform the services is valid. The suits have been filed by the alienees from the original inamdars under Section 35 (2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951), to set aside the order of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, directing resumption of the inams at the instance of Sri Viadyanathaswami Koil Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer, who figured as the first defendant in all the suits, the second defendant being the State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai.

(2.) The original inam grant has not been filed in this case. The nature of the inam has to be ascertained only on a construction of the inam extract, Exhibit A-6 and the inam title deed, Exhibit B-1, in the light of the other evidence in this case. It is clear from column 8 of the inam extract Exhibit A-6 that the inam was granted for the service of sthaladars of puja paricharakam, stanikam, karivelam, sripadam, etc., of the pagoda of Vaidyanathaswami at Madavarvilagam. It appears from the inam extract that the services were being rendered by the sthaladars at the time of the inam settlement. It is ah undisputed fact that the service holders defaulted to perform the services and in fact, the service holders had disappeared from the scene a long time ago, having alienated the lands to strangers, who did not, or could not perform the service in the temple for the performance of which the original grant was made.

(3.) Three contentions were urged on behalf of the appellants in these Letters Patent Appeals, namely, that the inams were personal grants burdened with service and not service inams resumable under Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (II of 1927) that the inams comprised only the melwaram and not both the melwaram and kudiwaram and that the result of the prior proceedings under Section 44-B of Act (II of 1927) operated as a statutory bar against the devasthanam from contending that the inams comprised of both the warams.