BUDDU SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS versus KONDURU VENKATAPAYYA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 26-02-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1001 
BUDDU SATYANARAYA"N'A AND OTHERS 
v. 
KONDURU VENKATAPAYYA AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS JJ.] 
Inam arant-Presumption of lost grant-When a,rises-
Whether grant is of mel waram only or land itself-Gonstrnction of 
grant-Suit for ejectment ·-Rights of arch.kas, 
Though a presumption of an origin in some lawful title may 
in certain circumstances be made to support possessory rights long 
and quietly enjoyed where no actual proof of title is forthcoming, 
that presumption cannot be ma<le where there is sufficient evi-
dence and convincing proof of the nature of tbe grant and of the 
persons to whom it was made. 
In the case of an inazn grant, the mere fact that the amount 
shown in the Inam Register as the assessment was the same as 
the amount shown in the Ina1n Statement under the heitding "in· 
co1ne from the ina1n" does not lead to an inference that the 
grant co1nprised only the 1nelvarani, rights and not the land 
itself, 
'rhough in a, proceeding for franiing a sche1ne relating to a 
temple it may be permissible to take into account the claims, 
mora.l tJiough not legal, of the archakas and to make some pro-
vision to protect their interest, such considera.tions are out of 
place in a suit for ejectment of the archakas on proof of title, 
especially when they set up an adverse title and deny the title of 
the temple, 
[On tbe facts their Lordships held (i) that there was clear 
evidence that the inam grant in question was made by the grantor 
in favour of the temple and that in the face of this definite 
evidence as to the nature of the grant no presumption.of a lost 
grant can he made in favour of the archakas of the temple; and 
(ii) that the grant WILS of the land itself and notofmelvaram rights 
only,] 
CIVIL 
APPELLA1'E 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 121 of 1951. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 15th 
December, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras (Subba Rao <md Panchapakesa Ayyar JJ.) in 
Appeal No. 474of1945 arising out of the Judgment 
and Decree dated 31st July, 1946, of the Court of the 
Subordinate .Judge of Teuali in Original Suit No. 24 of 
1944. 
130 
I 
1963 
Feb. Z6. 
I 
1002 
SUPHEME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
1963 
1~1. 
C. 
Setalvad, 
Attorney-General for India, 
(N. Subrahmanyam and K. R. Chowdhury, with him) 
S 
Buddu 
for the appellants. 
a.t.yanarayana 
and Others 
K. s. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar (111. Seshachala-
v. 
pathi, with him) for the respondents. 
Kondu1·u 
V enkatapayya 
and Othere. 
1953. February 26. 
The J udgmcnt of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAS J.~This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery 
of possession of certain immovable properties mea-
suring about 93 acres and 33 cents which are more 
fully and particularly set out and described in 
Schedule A to the plaint. That suit was instituted by 
Konduru Venkatapayya, respondent No. 1, in his 
capacity as the Executive Officer appointed by the 
Government on the 15th July, 1942, in respect of 
Sri Somasekharaswami Temple at Kotipalle, hamlet of 
Donepudi, a temple notified on the 26th October, 1939, 
under the provisions of Chapter VIA of the Madras 
Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of 1927). 
The suit was instituted informa pauperis. The claim 
for ejectment of the defendants was founded on the 
allegation that the propert.ies belonged to t.he temple, 
having been given to it by an Inam grant made in 
1770 A.D. by Janganna Rao, the then Zamindar of 
Rachur, that the defendants 1 to 16 and their prede-
cessors were Archakas rendering Nitya N" aivcdya 
Deeparadhana services and as such were in possession 
of the properties for and on behalf of the temple and 
that defendants 17 to 43 were the lessees under the 
Archakas and that the defendants 1 to 16 were wrong-
fully claiming the properties as their own and the 
other defendants claimed to be in possession of por-
tions of the properties as their lessees. 
The plaintiff 
instituted this suit after having given registered notice 
to the defendants to make over possession of the suit 
properties to the plaintiff as the Executive Officer of 
the temple but the defendants were still continuing in 
such possession in spite of such notice. The defendants 
filed written statements raising various contentions 
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1003 
and issues to which it is not necessary now to 
refer. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment 
dated the 31st July, 1945, decreed the plaintiff's sui

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