A.T.S. CHINNASWAMI CHETTIAR ETC versus SRI KARI VARADARAJA PERUMAL TEMPLE AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 22-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
A.T.S. CHINNASWAMI CHETTIAR ETC. 
v. 
SRI KARI VARADARA.IA PERUMAL TEMPLE AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 
[N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, J.J.) 
Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conve1sio11 into Ryotwaii) 
Act, 1963: Sections 3(g), 8(1), 8(2) (i)(b), 44-Land given to a temple as 
C Devadayan1 Religious Inan1 of pennanenl character and cvnji'nned under a 
Title deed-Abolition of Minor lnan1s-Alie11ation clai111ed-Patta granted to 
the paity under S.8(2}(i)(b)--On appeal, Tiibunal ww1ted patta to the pmty 
under S.8( l )-High Cowt revm·ed the findings and granted patta in favour 
of Temph-Held, sale not proved-Stallltmy presumption in favour of 
temple-High Cowt 1ightly granted paua to temple. 
D 
E 
F 
The first respondent-temple \Vas the grantee of a minor inam com .. 
prising of lands to the extent of 19.58 acres. It was a devadayam religious 
inam of' a permanent character given rent-free for the support of the 
temple, and was confirmed under a title deed. Minor inams were abolished 
and Ryotwari settlement was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam 
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The appellants and 
first respondent-Temple asked the Settlement Tehsildar to issue the Ryot-
wari patta in their favour as regards the lands in their respective posses-
sion. The appellants in particular contended that the first 
respondent-temple had lost possession of the loam lands soon after the 
grant as the lands were alienated by the pujari of the temple in whose 
favour the lnam Commissioner conferred the grant. Though no sale deed 
was produced, the appellants relied on a partition deed between three 
members of a joint family. 
The Settlement Officer granted patta to the appellants under 
G S.8(2)(i)(h) of' the Act holding that the ap1iellants were in continuous 
possession of the lands for more than 12 years before 1.4.1960. Not 
satisfied with this, the appellants preferred appeals to the Minor lnam 
Tribunal claiming patta under S.8(1) of the Act, contending that the 
temple had only melwaram interest and that the appellants alone were 
H entitled to kudiwaram interest, thus entitled to Ryotwari patta. The 
30 
, 
' 
" 
' 
AT.S. CI-JINNASWAMJ CHETTIAR v_ K.V. PERUMAL TEMPLE 
31 
Tribunal granted patta under S.8(1) of the Act in favour of the appellants. A 
The first respondent-temple preferred appeals and the High Court 
reversed the findings and granted patta i11 favour of' the temple. Hence 
these appeals. It was contended that in view of the partition deed of the 
year 1888; the subse<Juent sale deeds and continuous possession of the 
lands, it was established that the appellants were in continuous possession B 
and enjoyment of the lands, and therefore, they must be given Ryorn·~ri 
patta under Section 8(1) of' the Act on the basis of' prescription of title to 
kudiwaram right by adverse possession; and that the view taken by the 
Tribunal that the grant in favour of the temple was only of melwaram 
interest was correct and the contrary finding given by the High Court was 
C 
not sustainable. 
The Respondents contended that there was nothing on record to 
show that the inamdar or any person claiming through him has legally 
parted with the title to the land; all the documents produced by the 
appellants were only transactions among the transferees without estab- D 
lishing \.Vho the original transferor was, and as such Section 44 of the Act 
\Vas attracted and the necessary presumption was that the grant in favour 
of the temple was both warams/iruwaram. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Settlement Tehsildar though negatived the contention 
of the appellants that by reason of the partition deed dated 17.2.1888 and 
subsequent numerous sale deeds, It must be deemed that the first respon-
dent had parted with disputed lands, has granted Ryotwari patta under 
Section 8(2) (i) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor loam (Abolition and Conver-
sion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 on the ground that the appellants were in 
possession of the lands in question for a continuous period of 12 years 
immediately before the 1st April, 1960. This view of the Settlement Tehsil-
dar was rightly set aside by the High Court in view of the admitted fact that 
E 
F 
the appellants miserably failed to establish that the first respondent temple G 
(inamdar) has transferred the lands by way of sale and mere possession of 
lands for the said period will be of no avail. The Settlement Tehsildar has 
rightly held tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.