KAMARAJU VENKATA KRISHNA RAO versus THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 08-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KAMA RAJU VENKA TA KRISHNA RAO 
v. 
THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND A~R. 
August 8, 1968 
[S. 1\1. S1KRI, R. S. i3ACHAWAT ANO K. S. HEGOE, JJ.] 
Andhra Jna111s (Abolition & Conversion into R_voovari) Acl 36 of 
1956, s. 2(1::.~)-1/ a tank fell lvithin the definition of a cluiritnble institu-
tion. 
'fhe appellant clain1cd that certain property comprised in an Inam 
which wa.' abolished by 'inue of the Andhra ln;ims (Aboli!ion & Con-
ver.;ion into Ryo1wari) Act 36 of 1956 should be registered 111 his name. 
His contention \\';1~ that prior to its abolition he was t~ In:imdar of that 
lnam though he had the liability to repair a tank in his village from out of 
the income. o[ lnam v.·as granted for a charitable purpose, the object of 
assuming the Inan1 \\'as }!ranted for a ch.afitahle purpose, the object of 
the charity being a tank! the same could not be consiElcTcd a charitable 
institution. 
HELD: (i) It \\'as clear from the L'\'itiL·nce that the Jna1n \\·as grant~d 
in favour o·f the tank and \Vas not 
a grant in favour of the appcllanrs 
family subject to the liability to repair the tank; and furthennore that the 
ancestors of the appellant and subscquen1ly the appellant ,,-ere looking 
after the management of the tank. 
(ii) Under Hindu )a\V a tank ca.n he an object of charity :ind v,;hen 
a dedication is made in favour of a tank. it is considered as a charitable 
institution. 
Once it \1.-·as held that the Inam in the present c~ was in 
favour of 1he tank. the tank in ques:ion must be considered a charitable 
in.•titution within the meaning of s. 2(E) of the Act. 
Consequently, 
after the aboli1jon of the lnam. the loam propeny 
is 
converted into 
Ryotwari properly of the tank. to be managed by it• manager. Admittedly 
the appellant was the present manager and hence the property in question 
must be registered in the name of the tank but would continue to be 
managed by the appell:lnt o:;o Jong 
a~ he 
continued 
to he its manager. 
!628 H-629 CJ 
MinistPr of l\'ational Revt•nue v. Trusr.v and 
G11r.r11nter Cn. 
Ltd., 
119401 A.C. 138; ;\f asjid Shahid Ga11j and Ors. v. Shirt>t11a11i (iurdwara 
Parbandhak Con1111ittee,. Anzritsar a11d Anr., A.l.R. 1940 P.C. 116; Jan1-
nabai v. Khimii Va//11hdass & Or.<.. l.l..R. (1890) 14. Born .. I at p. 9; 
and v. i\fariyappa a11d Ors. \'. B. K. 1'11ttaran1ayya a11d Ors. 1.L.R. [ 1957] 
'\1ys. 291: referred to. 
CIVIL Ar PELI.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 103 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the order dated August 9; 1963 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition "lo. 431 of 1961. 
A 
Jl 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
D. Narsaraju, A. Subba Rao and K. Jayaram, for the appel-
11 
!ant. 
II. Parthasarathy. for respondent No. I. 
-
• 
• 
A 
B 
c 
-
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KAMARAJU v. SUB COLLECTOR (Hegde, !.) 
625 
T. Satyanarayana, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. A short, none the less in~eresting question of I.aw 
arises for decision in this aweal by certificate, and that question 
is whether a tank can be considered as a charitable institution 
within the meaning of those words ins. 2(E) of the Andhra Inams 
(Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari Act) 1956 (Act No. 36 
of 1956) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
The Inam with which we are concerned in this case stands 
abolished under the Act. The appellant wants the property com-
prised in that Inam to be registered in his name. His contention 
is that prior to its abolition he was the Inamdar of that Jnam 
though he had the liability to repair the tank in his village from 
out of the income of that Inam. The Authorities under the Act 
have rejected his claim that he was the Inamdar of the Inam in 
question. . They have come to the conclusion that the Inam was 
in favour of the tank and that he was in possession of the Jnam 
property only as the Manager of the tank which according to them 
was a charitable institution. 
This conclusion has been upheld by 
the High Court. 
It j,s not known as to who granted the Inam in question. The 
grant is lost in antiquity. The only evidence we have relating to 
this Inam are the entries in the Inam register. 
A copy of that 
register has been produced in this case. 
Therein the Inam is 
shown to have been granted to the tank "uracheruvu". 
Under 
column 8 it is mentioned that it was given for repairs of the pond 
called uracheruvu situated close to the village. Under column 10 
it is mentioned that it is to be in force so long as the repairs of the 
ta

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