Case Note & Summary
The litigation concerned entitlement to a ryotwari patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, after abolition of a minor inam originally granted as a devadayam religious inam to Sri Kari Varadaraja Perumal Temple. The disputed lands comprised old S. Nos. 173 and 175, total extent 19.58 acres in Pollachi village. The original grant terms were not available, but the Inam fair register showed it was a devadayam religious inam of permanent character, rent-free for temple support, confirmed in 1863 under title deed No. 161. Upon the Act coming into force, minor inams were abolished and ryotwari settlement introduced. The Settlement Tehsildar initiated enquiry for grant of ryotwari patta. Both the appellants (successors-in-interest of certain joint family members) and the first respondent temple claimed patta. The appellants contended that the temple had lost possession soon after grant because one Thirumalai Ayyan, pujari, alienated the lands, though no sale deed by him was produced. They relied on a partition deed dated 17.2.1888 among Kuppanna Mudaliar, Marianna Mudaliar and Lakshmana Mudaliar, and subsequent sale deeds, to claim kudiwaram rights by adverse possession. The Settlement Tehsildar did not accept the partition deed as alienation by the inamdar but still granted patta to appellants under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act on the ground of continuous possession of 12 years before 1.4.1960. On appeal, the Minor Inam Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore) held that the temple had only melwaram interest and appellants were entitled to kudiwaram, granting patta under Section 8(1). The High Court in S.T.A. Nos. 174, 181 and 210 of 1974 reversed both and granted patta to the temple, holding that the grant was iruvaram (both warams) based on Section 44 presumption, and that appellants failed to prove any transfer by the inamdar. Before the Supreme Court, appellants argued that the High Court should have followed Bagavathi Aiman Temple v. Krishna Goundar, 1949 (2) MLJ 609, and that partition deed and continuous possession established kudiwaram right. Respondent temple argued that there was no legal transfer by the inamdar, documents only showed transactions among transferees, and Section 44 presumption applied, making the grant both warams. The Supreme Court examined the Act, noting that Section 3(a) made the Act exclusive, Section 3(g) extinguished pre-existing rights including adverse possession, Section 8(1) applied to persons lawfully entitled to kudiwaram immediately before appointed day, and Section 8(2) provided special rules for iruvaram minor inams granted for religious institutions, with sub-clause (i) enabling transferees in exclusive possession for 60 years or 12 years (with payment) to claim patta, and sub-clause (ii) giving the institution patta in other cases. Section 44 created a presumption that a grant to a religious institution included both melwaram and kudiwaram unless contrary proved. The Court held that the Settlement Tehsildar's grant under Section 8(2)(i)(b) was rightly set aside because appellants failed to establish that the temple inamdar had transferred the lands by sale; mere possession for 12 years was insufficient. The Tribunal's finding of only melwaram was untenable in view of the statutory presumption under Section 44. Further, after the Act came into force, rights vested in the Government and ryotwari patta could be claimed only under the Act, not outside it; hence adverse possession claim was misconceived, and Section 3(g) barred it. The earlier Madras High Court decision was distinguished as not dealing with this Act, and the two later decisions were factually inapplicable because alienation by inamdar was admitted there. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's order granting ryotwari patta to the temple under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Minor Inam Abolition - Ryotwari Patta Entitlement - Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Sections 3(a), 3(g), 8(1), 8(2) - The dispute concerned entitlement to ryotwari patta for lands originally granted as devadayam inam to a religious institution. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme under which all prior rights in minor inams vested in the Government and rights could be claimed only under the Act. Held that after the appointed day, claims based on adverse possession or kudiwaram right outside the Act were barred by Section 3(g), and patta had to be determined solely under Section 8. B) Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Inam Granted to Religious Institution Includes Both Warams - Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Section 44 - Section 44 provided that in proceedings relating to an inam granted for benefit of a religious institution, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the inam consists of both melvaram and kudiwaram. The appellants failed to prove any contrary, thereby confirming that the temple held iruvaram rights. Held that the High Court correctly applied the statutory presumption to reject the Tribunal's finding that the temple had only melwaram. C) Property Law - Transfer by Inamdar - Claim by Transferee Under Section 8(2)(i) - Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Section 8(2)(i)(a), 8(2)(i)(b) - To claim ryotwari patta as a transferee in an iruvaram minor inam granted for a religious institution, the claimant had to establish a transfer by way of sale by the inamdar and continuous exclusive possession for the prescribed period. The appellants relied on a partition deed of 1888 and subsequent sale deeds but no sale deed by the temple inamdar was produced. Held that mere possession for twelve years under Section 8(2)(i)(b) was insufficient where the essential prerequisite of transfer by the inamdar was not proved. D) Precedent - Distinguishing Precedent - Decision Under Different Statutory Scheme - Bagavathi Aiman Temple v. Krishna Goundar, 1949 (2) MLJ 609 - The appellants relied on a Madras High Court decision to claim kudiwaram right by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the decision was inapplicable because it did not deal with the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Held that decisions where alienation by the inamdar was admitted or which arose under different legal regimes could not support the appellants' claim under the Act.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the grant in favour of the temple comprised only melwaram or both melwaram and kudiwaram (iruwaram); whether appellants in continuous possession could claim ryotwari patta under Section 8(1) or Section 8(2)(i)(b); whether adverse possession claim was barred by Section 3(g) and Section 44
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; ryotwari patta granted to first respondent temple under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act, as lands were iruvaram minor inam granted for support of religious institution and no valid transfer by inamdar established.
Law Points
- Statutory presumption under Section 44 that grant to religious institution includes both melwaram and kudiwaram
- claim for ryotwari patta must be under Act only
- adverse possession barred by Section 3(g)
- mere possession insufficient without proof of transfer by inamdar under Section 8(2)(i)
- Section 8(2)(ii) entitles institution to patta when no valid transfer
