CHEKURI SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. MOKKARALA VENKATA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the suit giving rise to this second appeal is a purohit service inam of an extent of ac. 3-85 cents in Korupalli village of West Godavari District. The plaintiff, one of the villagers, brought the suit as representing all the villagers for a declaration that an alienation of this inam by the 1st defendant, the father of defendant, 2 to 4 does not bind the successor-in-office of the 1st defendant. The 5th defendant obtained a lease of the suit property under Ex. D-1 on 24th of Sept. 1942 for a period of fifty years paying a premium of Rs. 3,348 without reservation of annual rent. The remainder right was transferred on 11-1-1943 to the sister-in-law of the 5th defendant namely, the 6th defendant for Rs. 500/-. The plff's case is that the 5th defendant resorted to this device with a view to purchase the property outright and both formed part of the same transaction. The basis of the suit is that the lease was hit at by Section 5 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act as well as Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) Several defences were raised to the suit, namely, that the land in question did not constitute an inam, that the lease in question did not amount to an alienation within the purview of either of the two provisions of law and consequently not void or even voidable as the 1st defendant continued to live in the village and render service and that lastly the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the suit and that, at any rate, the failure to implead the Government as a party was fatal to it. The trial court dismissed the suit holding against the plaintiff on the issues, whether the property formed an inam, and the maintainability of the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge while upholding the claim of the plaintiff to file the suit refused to grant a decree as, in his opinion, the alienation could not be treated as invalid. He found that the 1st defendant left the village and did not render any service. The conclusion of the lower appellate court as regards the validity of the lease is impugned before me in this second appeal brought by the aggrieved plaintiff.

(3.) The arguments advanced by Mr. Rama-chandra Raju for the appellant is that dehors Section 5 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, the transaction in question attracts Section 6 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act as it is opposed to public policy, namely, that the holder of the service should not be deprived of emoluments or income from the lands attached to his office. On the other side, Mr. Surya-narayana contends that leases of this type are permissible both under Section 5 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act and Section 6 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act, as such transfers are not contrary to public policy. The point for determination is whether this transaction infringes either Section 5 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act or Section 6 (h)of the Transfer of Property Act.