LexP. V. BHEEMSENA RAO versus SIRIGIRI PEDDA YELLA REDDI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 339 here also. He then says that this rule restricts the z96x powers of a managing officer or a managing corpora- Major Gopal tion in the matter of cancellation of allotment in the Singh & Others sense that it permits cancellation only on certain speci- v. . fied grounds and, therefore, it cannot be said that Custodian, s. 19(1) of the Act is completely in conflict with s. 10 P Evacu~ . b of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act in so roper'!:_ un;a far as the question of cancellation of allotment is con- Mudholkar J. cerned. We cannot accept the argument because, apart from the fact that the acquired properties have ceased to be evacuee properties, cl. ( d) of r. 102 per- mits the managing officer or managing corporation to cancel allotment "for any other sufficient reason to be recorded in writing". The only effect of r. 102 is to permit cancellation of an allotment for reasons stated. ,. That is all. In our opinion, therefore, this rule does not help the appellants. Mr. Khanna had raised three other points but upon the view which we have taken as to the effect of ss. 12 and 19 of the Act, it is not necessary to consider them. • The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs because had there been no delay on the part of the Custodian General in deal- ing with the revision application the present situation would not have arisen. Appeal dismisserl. P. V. BHEEMSENA RAO v. SIRIGIRI PEDDA YELLA REDDI AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANOHoo, JJ.) lnam grant-Personal, burdened with service-Alienation by grantee and service discontinued-If resumable by revenue autho- rities-Madras Hindu Rdigious Endowments Act, No. II of I927, ss. 44-B(r), 44-B(2)(a)(l) and (ll), Board's Standing Order 54. · z96z Ma1'ch z6. r96I P. V. Bheemsena Rao v. Sirigiri Pedda Yella Reddi 6- Others 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] The property in dispute was granted in inam to the ances- tors of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents fot the performance of parak service.in certain temples hut the grantees alienated considerable portion of the property and ceased to perform the parak service. On being moved by the trustees under s. 44-B(z)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Madras Hindn Reli- gious Endowments Act, 1927, the revenue authorities after hold- ing an enquiry ordered resumption of the inam lands and re- granted them to the temple. The alienees thereupon filed a suit in which their main contention was that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to order the resumption of the inam under s. 44-B of the Act which is in these terms:- " Any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years, of the whole or any portion of any inam granted for the performance of a charity or service con- nected with a math or temple and made, confirmed or recognised by the British Government, shall be null and void." Both the trial court and the High Court on appeal held that the inam was a personal inam burdened with service to the temple and the case did not fall under s. 44-B of the Act. On appeal by the trustees with a certificate of the High Court, Held, that the distinction between a grant for an office to be remunerated by the use of land and a grant of land burdened with service is that the former is a case of service grant and is resumable when the service is not performed; the latter is not a service grant as such but a grant in favour of a person though burdened with service and its resumption will depend upon whether the circumstances in which the grant was made esta- blish a condition that it was resnmable if the service was not performed. Shrimant Lakhamgouda v. Raosaheb Baswantrao, (1931) LXI M.L.J. 449, referred to. Though on a wide interpretation s. 44-B(r) might also include personal inams burdened with service it is really con- fined to inams directly granted to the temple or service inams for the purpose of a temple or math or inams the whole income of which is meant for charity and does not include personal inams burdened with service. Such inams would continue to be dealt with under Board's Standing Order 54 class (b) as intro- duced by the amendment to that order. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appe11,l No. 752 of 1957. ,• Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Jan- uary 8, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 312 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.