DEVADOSS (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus VEERA MAKALI AMMAN KOIL ATHALUR

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 09-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DEVADOSS (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
v 
VEERA MAKALI AMMAN KOIL ATHALUR 
DECEMBER 9, 1997 
(S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 
1963) : Section 9(2)(a) proviso (as amended by T.N. Act 27 of 1966) and 
2( 13)(ii)(a) and 65(1). 
· New 
inam 
estate-Private 
land 
as 
defined 
in 
S. 
2( 13)(ii)(a)-Patta-Grant of~To temple as landholder-Land under per-
D sonal cultivation of temple not proved-Held: Amended proviso to S. 9(2)(a) 
applied-Hence, temple exempted from proving personal cultivation for pur-
pose of grant of patta-It makes no difference that exemption from proof of 
personal cultivation is introduced in S. 9(2) (a) and not in S. 
2( 13)(ii)(a)-T71e presumption under S. 65( 1) regarding the land being 1yoti 
is rebuttable-This presumption gets rebutted because of the introduction of 
E the exemption to the temple-Cowt can refer to the Statement of Objects and 
Reasons accompanying the Act to take notice of the evil which was sought to 
be remedied-Interpretation of Staflttes. 
F 
G 
Th~ appellant, before the lnam Tribunal (Sub-Court), claimed ryot-
wari patta in a private laud ou the basis that he had cultivation rights over 
the said laud. The Tribunal held that the appellant was only a tenant and 
granted ryotwari patta to the respondent-temple as landowner under 
Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into 
Ryotwari) Act, 1963. 
The Appellate Tribunal (Sub-Court) dismissed the appeal filed by 
the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the amendment by the T.N. 
Amending Act 27 of 1966 relating to exemption in favour of a temple from 
proving personal cultivation and granted the said exemption to the respon-
dent-temple. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 
H · Hence this appeal. 
282 
-
-
r
• 
-
DEV ADOSS (DEAD) BY LRS. v. VEERA MAKALI AMMAN KOIL ATHALUR 283 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the proviso added A 
in Section 9(2)(a) of the 1963 Act by T.N. Amending Act 27/1966 applied 
only to Section 2(13)(ii)(a) and not to Section 2(13)(ii)(b) of the 1963 Act 
and would not help the respondent-temple, that the legislative intention 
behind T.N. Act 27/1966 was not to grant any exemption in favour of 
religious institutions and the respondent had to prove personal cultivation B 
for 3 years within a continuous period of 12 years immediately before 
1-4-1960, and that there was a presumption under Section 65(1) of the 1963 
Act to the effect that land in an estate was ryoti land, unless it was proved 
to be a private land by the landholder. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD : 1.1. With a view of avoiding hardship to temples in proving 
personal cultivation as required by Section 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu 
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, the Legisla· 
ture introduced a new provision of exemption by which it sought to exclude D 
temples from the need to prove personal cultivation under the proviso to 
Section 9(2) (a) of the 1963 Act inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amending Act 
27 of 1966. It is seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 
Amending Act that an exemption from personal cultivation became neces-
sary in respect of temples for proving land as private land. It is, therefore, E 
permissible for the court to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons 
to take notice of "the evil which was smight to be remedied" by the 
Amending Act by removing the said hardship experienced by t~mples. 
[295-E-G] 
Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985) 1 SCC 1 and F 
Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. Eileen K Patlicia D' Rozmie, [1995) 1 SCC 
164, relied on. 
1.2. The plain reading of the proviso to Section 9(2)(a) of the 1963 
Act after its insertion by the Amending Act 27 of 1966 is that the proof of 
personal cultivation even for 3 years within a continuous period of 12 years 
immediately before 1.4.1960 was not required for purposes of grant of 
ryotwari patta to the temple under Section 9(2)(a). [295-G-H; 296-A] 
Shanmugham v. Thintvadutlmrai Adheenam Madam, (1997) 1 L.W. 
G 
287 (Mad.), approved. 
H 
A 
B 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
2. It is true that Section 65(1) of the 1963 Act raises a mandatory 
presumption that until the contrary is proved, land is to be presumed to be 
ryoti land. But this presumption is a rebuttable one. The exemption carved 
out in the body of Se

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