BHAVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE PONNUR Vs. CHINTALAPUDI RUDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal of the unsuccessful plaintiff has been referred by our learned brother rtamanujulu ISIaidu, J. for an authority to pronouncement by a Division Bench since the question raised is of far reaching consequence. The point in issue is whether the holder of a minor inam burdened with service is still liable to render service to the temple even after the abolition of the inams and conversion into ryotwari tenure and grant of a patta in respect thereof? The appellant laid the suit to direct the respondent to render "piper service" in the appellant-Temple either by himself or his deputy as per the established usage and custom or in the ajternative for a decree of Rs 300/~ being the value of Baka service got rendered by third party with a change on the plaint schedule property. Tne trial Court decreed the suit without a charge, but on appeal it was met with dismissal. Thus the second appeal.

(2.) The brief undisputed facts are that the 1st defendant, Ch Surya Basavalingaiah, and his ancestors are hereditory piper servicedars of the appellant. The plaint schedule Ac. 5-08 cents jnam lands was granted to the 1st defendant's ancestor burdened with rendering piper service. In title deed No 171, the Inam Commissioner confirmed the inam in the name of the ancestor of the 1st defendant. They were rendering piper service till ryotwari patta under Ex A. 10 (=Ex B. 8), dated August 5, 1961 was granted by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar Ponnur under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Act No XXXVII of 1956) (for short'the Act'). The deceased first defendant gifted over the plaint schedule property to the respondent (the 2nd defendant) under a gift deed, Ex.B6, dated October 29, 1959.

(3.) The appellant claims that as per the conditions of the original grant and as per the custom' and usage the respondent is liable to render piper service to the appellant so long as he enjoys the plaint schedule property. The grant of ryotwari patta -is only for conversion of the inams tenure into ryotwari. The levy of full assessment does not relieve the respondent of his duty to render the hereditary piper service to the appellant, but he committed breach thereof It is in violation of the grant. The conversion into ryotwari tenure does not amount to resumption or regrant with full ownership rights of the plaint schedule property bereft of doing here ditary piper service. Since the enjoyment of the land is burdened with service, it is a charge on the plaint schedule property and continues to remain the same. The grant of ryotwari patta under the Act is also subject to the burden of rendering service. The Act did not relieve the respondent and his predecessor of the obligation to render piper service. Consequent upon the non-performance of the piper service in the temple by the respondent, the appellant is driven to engage third parties and is obliged to incur the expenditure at Rs 300/- per year in that regard. The rendering of piper service is covenant running with the [and. Therefore, if the respondent or his deputy fails to perform the duty, he is liable to reimburse the expenditure incurred in this regard with a charge on the suit land.