SRIMATH DAIVASIKHAMANI PONNAMBALA DESIKAR Vs. PERIYANAN CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eleven appeals are before the Board. Twelve ejectment suits were brought on 25th November 1918, by a Receiver appointed to manage certain Hindu temples and their endowments. One of these temples is dedicated to a deity Sri Subrahmanyaswami at a village called Kunnakudi, and to this temple belongs the village Uyyakondan part of which is a hamlet which goes by the name Murugan Endal. In 1865 the then manager of the temple granted a perpetual lease or cowle of Murugan Endal at a rent of Rs. 20 per annum to two Chettis called Palaniappa and Subrahmanyam, the lessees professing to act with the intention of dividing the profits of the land equally between two Chetti temples. The plaintiff in the present suits claimed (inter alia) that on his becoming entitled by his appointment as Receiver to the management of the Kunnakudi temple, the lease of 1865, even if binding theretofore upon the temple and its managers, ceased to have any validity or effect. Eleven of the suits reached the High Court of Madras on second appeal and were dismissed. The defendants were sued as persons who had taken title by sub-leases under the cowle of 1865 but in none of the suits has the plaintiff impleaded the persons in whom the leasehold interest created in 1865 is vested. It would appear that the persons who directed the affairs of the two Chetti temples have for some years past provided the rent reserved by the cowle and possessed the lands. The manager who granted the cowle is said to have died in 1875 but the history of the Kunnakudi temple and its affairs have not been properly proved. Between him and Arumuga there may have intervened one or more managers. Arumuga died in 1893 and was succeeded by Thandavarya who died in 1902. From 1902 until he was removed by decree of the High Court of Madras in 1913, one Nataraja was the de facto manager. The plaintiff was appointed Receiver on 31 March 1917.

(2.) In or about 1897 the managers of the two Chetti temples who were in possession of Murugan Endal as cowledars began to alienate portions thereof for building purposes and since that date a considerable number of buildings have been erected thereon though not upon the land of the defendants to the present suits. Thandavarya, having come to hear of the building and having visited the village in 1898, brought several suits in 1900 against persons claiming to hold portions of Murugan Endal from the cowledars. The present defendants who are their predecessors in title were not among the persons then sued. Of the seven suits four were compromised but in the other three the judgments of Subordinate Judge, District Judge and High Court have been put in evidence in the present case. These documents show that the persons in whom the leasehold interest of 1865 was vested were not impleaded but only certain grantees from them of portions of the land. Also that Thandavarya had purported on 1 September 1899, to grant to one Raman Chetti (co-plaintiff in the suits) a lease of the whole village of Uyyakondan and another village as well. The suits were not brought upon the footing that the cowle of 1865 was void or was no longer binding : the averment was that the defendants without any right, title or interest wrongfully entered on the suit land in February 1900, and began to raise buildings in spite of the plaintiffs' objection.

(3.) The defendants by their written statements pleaded (inter alia) the cowle of 1865 and also that the two Chetti temples had acquired the ownership of Murugan Endal by adverse possession and had sold sites for building purposes to the defendants in 1897 ; that the plaintiffs had known of this all along and had consented to the defendants erecting the buildings. From the judgment of the Subordinate Judge it would appear that the plaintiffs' objection to this averment of title by the defendants was not that the cowle of 1865 was bad as being a permanent interest granted for a fixed rent but (a) that it was granted for agricultural purposes only and (b) that the defendants had not taken registered documents for their purchases thereunder. It appears from the judgment of the District Judge that there was or was thought to be a difficulty in that the cowle of 1865 was not registered: the counterpart, however, may be proved although not registered, under the law obtaining in 1865.