C. PERIASWAMI GOUNDAN AND ORS. versus SUNDARESA IYER AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 8 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 31-07-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

8 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
347 
in the ·statute to include in that expression what in reality 
1964. 
is not 'income, but is deemed income, the liability to 
CJ.'l. 
assessment would justifiably 
be limited to· profits of. tlie Chu:•,J;,, 
a1Ul 
business which is computable under s. 10. 
· 
\ 
Co. 
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with costs. 
One hearing fee. 
Appeals di.rmissd. 
C. PERIASWAMI GOUNDAN AND ORS. 
. --v. 
SUNDARESA IYER AND ORS. 
(K. SUBBA RAO AND S. M. Sllll, JJ.) 
/Mm rrant--Suit for_ ejectment-Defendant raised plea of LoJt Grant-
When presumption of Lo1t Grant arise.1-Whether trant i.r melvaram. 
or both ,,_ .. urm.J--Right of Archaka.t-Whether ArchaktJ.f can cl&im 
remuneration. in a 1uit for ejectment. 
The :appellants filed suits for the recovery of certain properties from 
tl!.e pos!e!sion of the respondents. The plaintiffs were the trwtees of 
the temples and the defendants were the archak!s and the alienees of 
tho suit properties. The!e suits were based on title and the relief a,,ked 
fee was the eviction of the arcbakas from the suit property z.s they. · · 
accordi.n: to the plaintiff:!!, (appellants) bad no title to rerriain in 
pcssession. Tho plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties ·were the 
iJLOperties of the deity !.nd that the defendants bad no, right therein. 
The archal!.S raised the plea that the title of the deity was confined 
enly to rr.elvaram in the plaint-!chedule landa and that they had title 
to the Kudivaram. Both the Trial Court and the High Court confirmed 
the title of the deity to both the intere!ts (VaramJ) and negatived the 
title of the defendant-Archakas. 
The High Court also held. that the 
art:h.akas were entitled to have a portion of the said properties allotted 
to lliem toward.J their remuneration for the services to the temples and. 
&a.Te a decree directing the division of the said properties into two halYes 
and puttin.; the archakas in possession of one half. Against this decree 
of the High Court both the arch al: as and the trustees (appellants) 
preferred cross appeals to this Court. 
Sluzh /. 
1964 
July, :n . 
I964 ' 
-\ 
C.. Periaswami 
v. 
Slllldaresa Iyer 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
The main point for consideration was whether the High' Court. havitiJ 
held that the title to the suit property vested in the deity, had ;urisdiction 
to compel the trustees of the tenlple to put the arcbakas m posseSjlOA 
of specified extent of prop.eny towards t.~cir ren.11.,~c~r~tlon. 
lleld: (i) The principle of a Lost Grant l'an rJ;1l}' 
~-e invoked whe1c-
there is. no accepta'ble evidence of the terms of the grant. In tU 
present case there is no scope for invoking the doctrine of Lost Gra..-it 
-as the terms of the grant are clear from the recitals in the loam :register 
and the inam statement, which conclusively establish that both the. 
Varam~ were &ranted to the deity. 
Sankaranarayana Pillayan T. 11.R.E. Board, 
Madrtu~ I.LR. 1941-
Mad. 585, Buddu Satyanarayana v. Konduru Venkatapayya, [1953] S.C.R. 
1001, !rfaginiram Sitaram v. Kasturbai Manibhai, (1921) LR. 49 I.A. $4 
and Mohamed Muzafar Ali Musavi v. labeda Khatun, (1930) LR. '7 
I.A. 125. relied on. 
(ii) The High Court erred in making an allocation of the Janda 
between the trustees and the archakas in a suit Coi- ejectment because 
there was absolutely no material either in the pleadings or in the 
evidence to make anY SU.ch apportionment. The High Court bad no 
option but to deliver possession·. to the plaioliffs who had t;-Stab!ished 
their title to the suit properties. Io a- iUit for framing a s;::heme lot 
temple a court may in an appropriate case put the arcbaka in Pl..,_o;-e.ssion 
of a portion of the temple lands towards his remuneration for :icrvices 
of the temple; but such considerations are out of place in a suit for 
rjectmenL 
-Uk:J 
. Brahmayya v. Rajaswaraswami Temple, A.l.R. 1953 ;,I:ld. . .SSO as 
. Yenkatadri v. Seshacharlu. LLR. 1948 ~lad. 46. referred to. 
, (iii) On the facts of thiJ case it was held that the conducl of tho 
archakas, was consistent with the recitals in the inam -register, namely, 
that what was granted to the deity was the land i.e. both the Varam1 
and that they had been put in enjoyment tbe said land in their capacity 
as archakas and de facto trustees. 
They could not by mortgaging or 
otherwise alienating the property claim any· right in derogation of the 
title of the deity. They also cannot claim any right because their namca 
are mentioned
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.