SRINIVASA AYYANGAR Vs. SRAMALINGA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a suit for a scheme and consequential reliefs under Section 69, Madras Act 1 of 1925 (The Religious Endowments Act) in respect of the endowments of a temple dedicated to Sri Varadaraja Perumal Swami in the village of Mullipallam, Nilakottai Taluk, Madura District. The plaintiffs case is that the lands which were constituted as an endowment were originally granted as an inam by the ancient Carnatic rulers of the country to the diety. The defendants belong to the family of the archakas of the temple. They pleaded that the archakas were in occupation of the lands from time out of memory. They also, say that they bona fide believe that the grant of the inam was to the service holder burdened with the obligation of the service of doing puja and putting light in the nights, and the allegation in the plaint that the inam was an inam to the deity was denied. Issue 5 in the case is whether the grant was to the temple itself or to the archaka burdened with service to the idol and Issue 4 is whether the plaint lands themselves constitute the inam or only the teerva thereof (the word "teerva" being used synonymous with assessment). The District Judge found that the grant was to the temple itself and not to the archaka and that the lands themselves constituted the inam. He gave a decree removing defendant 1 from the position of the trustee and he left it to the Religious Endowments Board to frame a scheme and appoint a fresh trustee. Meanwhile he directed that the receiver appointed by the Court should continue in possession. Both the parties appeal. The defendants are agreed that defendant 1 is the only person who was doing the work of the do facto trustee, that is, that he only was managing the temple and that the other defendants had nothing to do with the management of the temple.

(2.) The first question that arises in the case is the subject of Issue 5. The earliest document we have is Ex 7 being an extract from the jamabandi chitta of the village of Mullipallam for fasli 1210. It refers to Devadayam Sudha inam, and lower down refers to "Perumal" temple sudha inam". The next document we have is Ex. A (same as Ex. 7-A) an extract from the inam jamabandi account for fasli 1212 (that is the year 1802-1803). The document begins by referring to Devadayam inam. Then the heading of Col. 3 is given as Perumalkoil inam. As pointed out by me in Tripura Sundaramma V/s. Secretary of State the word devadayam" itself may not be conclusive but the use of the word "Perumalkovil inam" tends to show that the inam was regarded as inam belonging to the temple. Davaraja Battar the ancestor of the defendants living at the time, was shown as cultivator. He was not mentioned even as the archaka of the temple. For fasli 1215 we have got Ex. 7-B which refers to Perumal inam cultivated by Devaraja Avyangar. The next document we have got is Ex. B-l the inam statement and Ex. B the inam register. In Col. 2 of the inam register the inam was described as "devadayam." I have already observed this may not be conclusive but in the inam statement in Cols. 4 and 5 also the word devadayarn" is mentioned under the headings "relationship between the original grantee of sannad and the person in enjoyment at present" and particulars of family." Though the use of word "devadayam" in Col. 2 of the register may not signify very much it seems to me that the use of word in Cols. 4 and 5 of the inam statement is unusual and goes to some extent against the contentions of the appellants (by which term I will throughout refer to the appellants in A.S. No. 233). In Col. 1 of the inam statement the entry is: Entered in fasli 1212 Devaraja Ayyangar, Varadarajaperumal maniam, enjoyment at present by Lakshmana Ayyangar archaka performing puja to the said Swami, the heading being "name of Inamdar entered in dowl and the name of the per-son enjoying at present." The reference is obviously to Ex. A, and while Devaraja Ayyangar's name is there, we have also the words "Varadarajaparumal maniam." The mention of enjoyment by Lakshmana Ayyangar does not add very much. In Col. 2 the age given is apparently the age of Lakshmana Ayyangar. Under Col. 3, "residence", we have "Varadaraja Perumalkovil in Mullipallam Tillage." Under the heading particulars of enjoyment," the entry is enjoyed by Varadarajaswamiperumal." Then we have got this note under the statement: The said land has been in the enjoyment of Varadarajaperumal Swami for a long time. It was granted by the Rajahs of Carnatic for the puja and naivedyam for the said Swami. From that time my ancestors and myself have been enjoying hereditarily. There is no document.

(3.) Then follows the seal of Varadarajaperumal Swami and then the signature of Lakshmana Ayyangar, inamdar. The appellants contend that the heading of the document is ambiguous. Assuming that this is so the whole document shows that Lakshmana Ayyangar regarded the land as land belonging to the deity. In the inam register under Col. 14 the person entered in the register prepared according to Regulation 31 of 1802, both in, faslis 1212 and 1217 is shown as Perunal. In Col. 15 also the name entered in the survey or in the subsequent ac- counts in fasli 125S, is shown as Varadaraja Perumal. In Cols. 16 and 17 the entry is "Mullipalam Varadaraja Peru-mal, worshipper Lakshmana Ayyangar." Col. 21 shows that the Deputy Collector recommended the inam to be confirmed free of quit-rent. The title deed was not exhibited in the suit but it seems to have been filed in connexion with the application for the appointment of a receiver and it purports to be issued to the manager for the time being of the temple. In our opinion Ex. B does not at all help the appellants. On the other hand both Exs. B and B-l show that the then archaka regarded the inam as belonging to the temple. Ex. 5 is the Sivajama patta granted for fasli 1276 for water cess issued to Lakshmana Ayyangar as pattadar. There is nothing in this to help the defendants. In 1871 Lakshmana Ayyangar executed an othi deed of thunduvaram for a sum of Rs. 17-8-0, for three years: Ex. 3. Having regard to the term and the amount taken, it may be regarded practically as a lease.