SECY OF STATE Vs. VELIVELAPALLI MALLAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal respondents in this appeal are the archakas of the temple of Sri Krita Kritya Rameswara Swami Varu in a place known as Gudimala Khandrika which forms part, as would appear from a survey map presently to be referred to, of the village of Rameswaram, situated in the Godavari District. Years ago a grant was made of certain lands in Gudimala Khandrika to the temple as inam, but the grant is lost and its origin is not known. In 1860 the grant was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner, subject to the payment of a quit- rent of Rs. 20 per year, and a title deed was issued to the temple which however is not forthcoming. The main question in the appeal is as to the extent to which the grant was confirmed.

(2.) It is usual to divide inams into two classess, namely, (1) major, and (2) minor. Technically a major inam is a whole village or more than one village, and a minor inam is something less than a village. A khandrika means a small hamlet. It is a large block of land granted as inam, less than a village, but much larger than an ordinary inam: see Mr. Maclean's Manual of the Administration in the Madras Presidency, Vol. 3. The first regular revenue survey in the Godavari District began in 1858. Demarcation and classification were completed in 1860-61, and field measurements in 1862. The survey map of the Rameswaram village was completed in 1862, and the total area of the village is stated on the map to be 3,860 acres. It would appear from the bhubaud accounts of the Rameswaram village that before the survey of 1858 the extent of the village, as well as of Gudimala Khandrika, was expressed in putties, a local measure, the extent of the village being 307 odd putties and that of Gudimala Khandrika 70 odd putties. There is nothing to show the extent of the village or of the Khandrika in acres before that date, nor is there any direct evidence as to the rate of conversion from putties into acres prevailing at that time.

(3.) In 1860 when the grant was confirmed, the extent of Gudimala Khandrika was specified in the Inam Register both in putties and in acres, the extent in putties being 70 and a fraction as in the bhuband accounts, and that in acres being 560.79. It would appear from these figures that the rate of conversion then adopted by the Inam Commissioner was 8 acres per putti. But the temple has been in possession at least since 1860 of the whole of Gudimala Khandrika, and it paid only Rs. 20 per annum for the whole land in its possession until 1917. As has already been stated, the extent of the Khandrika in local measure was 70 putties odd. At the survey and resettlement of 1900-01 it was found, excluding Government poramboke, to be 1,837.40 acres. If 70 putties odd be regarded as equivalent to 1,837'40 acres, the rate of conversion would be 27'35 acres per putti, and not 8 acres per putti, which was the rate adopted by the Inam Commissioner. The main question in the appeal is as to the extent to which the inam was settled in 1860, whether it was 560.79 acres as stated by the appellant, or 1,837'40 acres as claimed by the respondents. This involves a subsidiary question whether the proper rate of conversion is 8 acres per putti as alleged by the appellant, or 27'35 acres per putti as contended by the respondents. The respondents say that the Inam Commissioner erroneously converted putties into acres at the rate of 8 acres per putti.