SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL (DEAD) THROUGH MUTHUSUBRAMANIS GURUKKAL AND ORS. versus PATTESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM PERUR BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 08-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL (DEAD) THROUGH 
MUTHU.SUBRAMANIS GURUKKAL-AND ORS. 
v. 
PATTESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM PERUR BY ITS 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1992 
[S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Madras Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963-
Sections 2(5), 8(2)-'lnam', 'Manyams'-Meaning-lnam- grant-Kinds and C 
feature of 
· 
Madras lnams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 
1963-Sections 8(2), 21-lrnwaram grant-Whether original inam granted to 
devasthanam-Detennination-Absence of original grant deeds-Entries in 
Inam Fair Register-Evidential value of 
D 
The Settlement Tehsildar initiated suo motu proceedings under the 
provisions of the Madras Minor loams (Abolition and Conversion. into 
Ryotwari) Act, 1963 in respect of the issue of ryotwari patta in respect of 
service inams in a village. 
The Tehsildar held the necessary inquiry, directed the grant of 
ryotwari pattas with reference to the lands comprised in each inam title 
deed under Section 8(2) of the Act by treating the lands as 'lruvaram' 
Minor loams granted for the performance of services connected with the 
Devasthanam-respondent No. 1. 
While directing the pattas be issued to the service holders and such 
grant was made subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the 
Tehsildar held that Section 8(2) (i) was not applicable as there was no 
alienation in respect of the lands. 
The service holders and the Devasthanam preferred appeals before 
the Tribunal questioning the correctness of the orders of the Tehsildar. 
Several appeals were preferred before the Tribunal on the identical 
issues as to whether it was the Devasthanam or the service holders who 
were actually entitled to pattas. 
399 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
The Tribunal heard all the cases together and held that the grants 
were personal to the service holders and not absolute grants in favour of 
the Devasthanam, and that the grantees were the oozhiamdars falling 
under the description of -Class III. It further held that only the present 
service holder rendering service would be entitled to ryotwari patta if he 
was also in possession of the land in respect of the personal service inams 
which were iruwaram grants. 
Several Special Tribunal Appeals under Section 30 of the Act were 
preferred to the High Court against the judgment of the Tribunal. 
C 
The Division Bench of the High Court, on the question, who was 
entitled to the issue of ryotwari patta under Section 8(2) (ii) of the Act, the 
appellant or the Devasthanam, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and 
allowed the appeal of Devasthanam-respondent No. 1. 
The service holders, who were adversely affected by the order of the 
D High Court, preferred appeals to this Court. 
E 
The appellants submitted that the courts had always taken the view 
_ that the entries in the loam Fair Register should be given due importance; 
that the grant was personal for the person performing the service and it 
was not in favour of the Devasthanam; that the Division Bench of the High 
Court chose to rely on Exs.Bl to B.3, which were not in any manner 
conclusive; that in the absence of actual cancellation of the title deeds, the 
Devasthanam could not claim any right; that this was a case to which a 
statutory presumption under Section 44 of the Act would apply; that where 
the service holder was already in possessiOn, if the title deed was continued 
F 
to the individuals, certainly the Devasthanam could not claim anything 
more than the melvaram right; that no lease deed was executed by the 
service holders in favour of the temple; that merely because the Devas-
thanam had a right to supervise that would not confer upon it a right to 
the property as such; that having regard to the voluminous documents 
including the loam Fair Register which was .prepared at the time of the 
G settlement, being an act of the State, the conclusion arrived at by the High 
Court could not be sustained; that in the absence of the original title deeds 
the entries in the loam Fair Register should govern. 
The respondent-Devasthanam submitted that in this case, as the 
H grant was of both the varams, the Devasthanam alone was the inamdar 
,. 
S. GURUKKAL v. P.D. PERUR 
401 
being the owner of iruvaram land and consequently, it would be entitled A 
to patta; that the appellants-service holders derived the rights to enjoy the 
land under contract with the Devasthanam and they could never

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