V E RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. KALIDASA KAVANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in these becond Appeals is whether a mortgage of a temple service Inam is valid. It is conceded by Mr. Patanjali Sastri that a sale of it is invalid. But he contends that a mortgage stands on a different footing. In Sundararaju Dikshatulu V/s. Seshadri Dikshitulu (1927) 54 M.L.J. 76 Kumara-swami Sastri, J., was inclined to the view that a mortgage would be invalid, On page 80 he observes: It has now been settled by this Court that alienations of temple service lands by sale, gift or mortgage, are invalid. I need only refer to the decision of the Full Bench in Anjaneyulu V/s. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd. .

(2.) The Full Bench case dealt with the case of an attachment in execution of a decree, The ground of prohibition is based on public policy. As Sir Walter Schwabe observes, an alienation by the holder: Is quite opposed to the nature of his interest and duty, namely, that he should enjoy the produce of the land as salary for the public services he has to render, that he should sell it or alienate it, leaving himself without the means of subsistence and without further interest in the place or in the performance of the services". Anjaneyulu V/s. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill Ltd. .

(3.) It was on this ground that the attachment was held to be invalid as the sale in pursuance thereof would deprive the inamdar of the land and then consequent loss of services to the temple. Mr. Patanjali Sastri contends that a mortgage would not necessarily lead to this result as it might be open to courts, instead of ordering a sale, to appoint a Receiver to appropriate the profits towards the debt after making due provision for the maintenance of the holder of the Inam; and he also relies on the cases where the Courts permitted leases of such Inam lands. Leases have been upheld on the ground that: Very often leasing the land is the usual or the beneficial mode of enjoyment and although the land is cultivated by some one else he provides for himself what was intended he should have, namely, a sustenance from the land.