BHAGAVATHI AMMAN TEMPLE Vs. KRISHNA GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants here--Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple represented by three of its pujari trustees--used in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of the lands described in the plaint A schedule and for profits in respect thereof. The three trustees representing the temple alleged that defts. 1 to 11 were tenants at will liable to be evicted and that defts. 13 to 15 were their co-trustees who not having joined them in suing were impleaded as pro forma defts. Defendant 12 was the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board who like defts. 13 to 15 supported the case of the pltfs.-trustees that the suit lands which had been originally granted by a Mysore King and were later confirmed by the East India Co. and later still by the British Indian Govt. at the time of the Inam Settlement belonged to the deity in both the warams. It was also part of the plaint case that the decree of the Diat. Munsif's Court of Dharapuram in O. S. No. 225 of 1939 on its file dated 27-9-1940 was null and void, in so far as it wrongly held in confirmation of the appellate order of the District Collector in certain proceedings for resumption of the suit lands under Section 44-B, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, that the grant was only of the melwaram. The contesting defts. maintained inter alia that the grant was only of the melwaram as, according to them, rightly held by the learned Dist. Munsif of Dharapuram in the former suit, that the former decision operated as res judicata in the way of the present action, and that they and their ancestors had been in possession of the suit land from time immemorial and in any event acquired a right to the kudiwaram by prescription. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below found against the plea of res judicata, but otherwise upheld the defence and dismissed the suit. The pltfs. have accordingly appealed.

(2.) Mr. B. V. Viswanatha Aiyar, the learned advocate for the applts. argued before us that the grant ought to have been, on the material available, chiefly furnished by Exs. P-l, P-2, extracts of Inam Statement and the Inam Fair Register relating to the suit inam, held to cover both the warams and that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the defts. are entitled to the kudiwaram by adverse possession is erroneous in law as well as on the facts. On the other hand, Mr. Ramanatha Aiyar, the learned advocate for the resps. has not only maintained that the conclusions of the learned Subordinate Judge on these two points are correct but also urged that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have accepted the plea of res judicata.

(3.) With the first contention of the applts'. learned advocate we agree. What is disclosed by the inam documents is that the grant was to the temple of a Sarvadumbala inam of lands specifically described by boundaries, in respect of which the assessment payable to Govt. but for the rent free character of the grant would have been Rs. 31-8-2 and which at the time were under letting by the pujari in charge to the cultivators on a kandayam basis and were fetching produce which the pujari utilised for naivedyam to the deity. The description of the income in Ex. P-l as Rs. 31-8-2 which is shown in Ex. P-2 as in fact the assessment payable to the Govt. on the land but for the grant does not, in our opinion, warrant the inference that the grant was in the nature of a mere remittance to the inamdar, the temple of the rent payable to the Govt. by tenants already in occupation. There is no reference in either Ex. P-l or Ex P-2 to any such tenants. On the other hand, the only reference to tenants, which is to be found only in Ex. P-l, is to tenants to whom the pujari himself leased out the lands on a kandayam basis and from whom he was in perception of profits which were however used "for distribution to the deity." For the applts. it is further pointed out that there were permanent leases,"" Exs. P-4, P-5 and P-G of 6-5-1890 each in respect of one-third share of the suit lands granted by the pujaries in their respective shares on the footing that the original grant was of the land covering both the warams and that under Ex. P-3. Guruvayee, the widow of Vaduharandi, one of the members of the pujari family executed a debt of relinquishment in favour of the lessors under Exs. P-4 to P-6, her pangatis abiding by the leases granted by them. The evidence furnished by the inam papers being unequivocal in its nature we are, even quite apart from EXS. P-8 to P-6, clearly of opinion that the original grant was of the land itself. The conduct evidence furnished by the actings of the contesting defts. & their predecessors which begins only in 1899 is even less pertinent than Exs. P-3 to P-6 to the determination of the question of the nature & scope of the original grant. We accordingly reject the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge based upon such conduct evidence that the grant originally made was of the melwaram only.