K.V. SUDHARSHAN versus A. RAMAKRISHNAPPA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 15-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 465 
K.V. SUDHARSHAN 
A 
v. 
A. RAMAKRISHNAPPA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5646 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
.. 
Mysore (Religious and Charitable lnams) Abolition Act, 
. 1955: 
lnam lands - Granted to· eldest son with the consent of c 
brother and other family members - Partition - Held: lnam 
lands cannot be regarded as individualproperty-:Of grantee -
In terms of provisions under the 1955 Act, inam lands liable 
to be granted to tiller of such lands who may be an archakl 
-<(' 
tenant/office bearer- Such grant is meant for benefit of family D 
of tiller and not for his individual benefit - Thus, grant of land 
in favour of the eldest son, with the consent of other tnef!lbers 
of the family could not disentitle other members to exe(cise 
their right to claim share in the property/lands - Moreover, 
lands Tribunal granted occupancy right to grantee because E 
his father was Archak of the temple and not because the con-
ditions as laid down in s. 6(A) of the Act are fulfilled - Occu-
pancy right, as granted to him, was. not his individual right-
' 
Hence, the lands in question available for partition. 
-.(. 
Father of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was serving as an 
F 
•, Archak in a temple and had been cultivating the inam 
lands attached to the temple. After his death, the lands 
were granted by the authority to respondent No.1, the el-
dest son, with the consent of other members of the fam-
ily. Respondent No.1 was also acting as the Manager of' G 
the ancestral and self-acquired property of his father. 
~ 
Appellant, son of resp.ondent No,2, issued a legal notice 
to respondent No.1 demanding partition of the joint fam-
ily properties including inam lands. Respondent No.1 re-
465 
H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A fused to partition the immovable properties. The appel-
lant filed a suit for partition claiming his share in the prop-
erties along with mesne profits. The Trial Court dismissed 
the suit holding that prior partition was established in view 
of the admission by respondent No.2 and as such the 
B appellant could not demand partition. Aggrieved, the ap-
pellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the High 
Court. Review petition was also dismissed by the High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that in respect of inam lands 
C granted to respondent No. 1, the High Court had commit-
ted an error by holding that since the appellant and the 
respondent No.2 had not performed the duties as archak 
of the lnamdar Temple and they had not personally culti-
vated the lands, they were not entitled to grant of the inam 
D lands. 
Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that 
respondent no.1 had got the properties, imam land in 
question, vacated from the tenants who had been culti-
E vating it and thereafter he was personally cultivating the 
same and after coming into force of the Mysore (Religious 
and Charitable lnams) Abolition Act, an application for 
grant of occupancy rights was moved on his behalf and 
the right was conferred on him by the competent author-
ity after proper inquiry and therefore, the appellant could 
F not claim partition of the same; that respondent no.1 was 
admittedly the archak of the temple and he was also cul-
tivating the properties personally for a continuous period 
of 3 years prior to the date of its vesting with him and 
therefore, he was entitled to apply for registration of his 
G right in terms of provisions of the Act; and that the grant 
of such right is a personal right which cannot be charac-
terized as an ancestral right because in this case, even if 
his father was alive, he could not have become entitled to 
grant of occupancy rights because he was not cultivat-
H ing the lands. 
K.V. SUDHARSHAN v. A. RAMAKRISHNAPPA 
467 
> 
& ORS. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Under the scheme of the Mysore (Reli-
gious and Charitable lnams Abolition) Act, inam lands are 
liable to be granted to the tiller of such lands, be, as it 
.,,{ 
may, as tenants, archaks or office bearers of the inamdar B 
temple. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that such 
grants are meant for the benefit of the family of the tiller 
and not for him individually and for this reason, there can 
be no justification to disregard the rights of the junior 
members of the family if their eldest member was perform-
ing the duties of archak with the consent of others. For this c 
reason and in

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