ATYAM VEERRAJU AND OTHERS versus PECHETTI VENKANNA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 20-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
..... 
831 
A 
ATYAM VEERRAJU AND OTHERS 
v . 
PECHETI1 VE~XANNA AND OTHERS 
September 20, 1965 
B 
[A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Adverse Possession-Suit lands owned by Deity-Sanad execwed by 
trustee in 1851 in favour of defendants-Defendants clajming permanent 
le<Me-Nature of rights conferred could not be presumed in favour of 
defendants without production of sanad-Defendants were lessees from 
year to year-Their possession not adverse to deity-As tenants 1hey could 
not challenge title of landlord-Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 116-llldian· 
Limitation Act, 1908, Arts. 144, 134-B, 139. 
The suit lands belonged to a Hindu Deity. 
In 1851 the then Archaka 
and de facto trustee of the temple arranged with P the great grandfather 
of the first defendant, that the latter would supply one fourth seer of 
gingili oil every day to the temple and instead of receiving the price of 
the oil would enjoy the income of the lands. The arrangement was reduced 
into writing. The first defendant and his predecessors continued in posses-
sion of the lands under this arrangement. The arrangement was put an 
end to by notices dated December 6, 1948 and August 31, 1949 issued by 
the plaintiff's Advocate to the first defendant. The second defendant was 
a lessee to the suit lands under the first defendant. 
In their written state-
ments the defendants denied that plaintiff was a trustee of the deity or had 
a right to sue on its behalf. 
Various other defences including that of 
adverse possession were taken up. 
The trial court held : ( l) The suit 
lands belonged to the deity, (2) the arrangement of 1851 amounted to a 
permanent lease of the lands by the then Archaka and de facto trustee of 
the temple to the ancestor of the first defendant on condition of his supp)y .. 
ing one fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple and (3) the 
first defendant and his predeces~ors in interest had acquired title to the 
lands by adverse possession burdened with this condition. 
On these find-
ings the trial court dismissed the suit. The decree was confirmed by the 
High Court on appeal. 
Without expressing any opinion on the first two 
questions the High Court agreed with the finding of the trial court of 
the qu~
1 ion of adverse possession. 
The plaintiff and t\vo other persons 
appealed to this Court by special leave. 
The following questions arose for decision : (1) Was the deity the 
owner of the suit lands? 
(2) If so, what rights were acquired by the 
ancestor of the first defendant under the arran•ement of 1851 and (3) 
Had P and his successors-in-interest acquired title by adverse possession 
oubject to the burden of supplying oil every day? 
HELD : (i) On an examination of the documentary evidence produced 
by both sides it was clear that the deity was the owner of the lands. (836 
DJ 
(ii) The claim of the defendants that by the sanad dated November 
10, 1851 the lands were conveyed to P subject to the burden of supplying 
oil for evening lighting purpose~ could not be accepted. Had the properties 
been conveyed bv the Sanad to P, he and his successors would have been 
entered in the villaj!;e accounts as the inamdars and the pattas in respect of 
the suit lands would have been issued to them. But all along the deity 
was shown as the registered inamdar and the relevant pattas were Issued 
832 
SUPREME 
COURT REPORTS 
[1966] l S.C.R. 
to the deity and not the plaintiff, or his 6uccessors. 
In 1pite of a notice 
A 
served by the plamtiff the defendants had JlOl produced the sanad. 
Their 
explaoauon that it was not rn their po""""'"on could not be accepLed. [83b 
E] 
(iii) Nor could it be accepted that under the Sanad dated November 
10, 1851, P and his successont-in-interest acquired a right of permanent 
tenancy. 
Had the origin of the tenancy been not known an inference could 
I! 
fairly have been drawn from the facLs that the tenancy wa. permanent. 
Having regard to the long lapse of time it could ha\·e been presumed that 
the permanent tenancy was granted for legal necessity. 
But in the preseot 
case the origin of the tenancy was known. 
The tenancy was granted by 
the Sanad dated November tO, 1851. 
Only Ille Sanad cnuld show wha< 
intereot was granted by it. 
The defendants had deliberately withhold this 
document, and therefore every presumption had to be made against them 
to their disadrnntage con,istem wi<h tbe facts. 

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