T. K. LAKSHMANA IYER & ORS. versus STATE OF MADRAS & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 26-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

T. K. LAKSHMANA IYER & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS & ORS. 
Mari:h 26, 1968 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, C. A. 
VAIDIALINGAM, K. S. HEGDE AND A.. N. 
GROVER, 11.] 
. 
Modras _Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (2 of 1927)-S. 44B 
inserted by Act 11 of 1934-/noms granted by Hindu King for perfor-
ma~e of services at temple-Whether included me/waram rights only or 
kf!d1waram als~Whether granted in respect of personal services or here· 
d1tary ofjices-S. 44-B whether retrospective-Whether applicable to 
iflall!S alienated before 1934-Alienees whether could claim adverse pos-
session. 
Inams were granted by Hindu kings fo'r performance of certain ser-
vices (e-11. watchmen, music playen etc.) in the ancient temple of Thiru-
moolanathaswami. The iJllllllS were confirmed by the British Ooverrunent. 
For over 80 years the inams were enjoyed by alienees -from the jnamdan. 
By an order passed on ApHI 10, 1947 under s. 44-B of the Madras Hindu 
Religious Endowments Act, 1926, the Revenue Divisional Officer resumed 
the inam lands and regranted them to the temple. 
His order was con-
firmed on appeal by the District Collector. 
Both these authorities held 
that the inams comprised both melwaram and kudiwaram rights. 
Tb.e 
alienees instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge under the 
proviso to s. 44-B(2)(d)(ii) asking for a decree declaring that the inam 
gtants consisted of the melwaram onlv. Thev filed another suit asking 
for a declaration that the aforesaid order passed by the Collector was a 
nullity. 
In appeals against the order of the trial judge the High Court 
decided against the plaintiffs except as regards Dasi inams. 
Against the 
High Court's order the plaintiff.appellants came to this Court. It was 
contended on their behalf that : (i) the inam grants did not oomprise the 
Kudiwaram; (ii) the inams were personal inams burdened with services 
and were not resumable under s. 44-B; (iii) Section 44-B(2) was not 
retrospective in operation and did not authorise resumption of the inams 
on the ground of any alienation thereof made before 1934 when it came 
into effect; (iv) there was no alienation of the inams as contemplated by 
s. 44-B(2l(a)(i); and (v) the ~ight of resumption of the inarn lands-WU 
extinguished by adverse possession of the lands by the alienees fnr 60 
years. 
HELD : ( i) The documents in evidence showed that the lands were 
being enjoyed by the inamdars and were granted as inams. _ The amount 
of the assessment or melwaram was very low and could not be an ade-
quate remuneration for the services to be rendered. The plaintiffs claimed 
title to the lands under a grant from the inamdars on the footing that the 
lnamdars were entitled to the kudiwaram and the melwaram. The con-
. clusion is irresistible that the inam comprised both the warams.[S47 F.01 
(ii) There is a well-recognised distinction between the grant of the 
land burdened with a condition of service and the grant of land as re-
muneration for an office. Section 44-B does not apply to a personal lnam 
burdened with a . condition of service. It a~lles to an inam granted to 
an offioe bolder as :remuneration for Im servtces corutected with a math 
or temple as also to an inam granted to the institution directly. The inams 
in the present cases were not personal in\Ulls. They were inams granted 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
T. K. L. IYER V. MADRAS 
543 
to office.holders as remuneration for services to be rendered by them and 
were within the purview of s. 44-B. [548 JI.CJ. 
(iii) The words 'has made' in s. 44-B(2)(a)(i) take in all alienations 
past and future and not only future alienatioos or alienation made after 
the section came into force. 
Section 4'h!l(2) is in its direct opetation 
· prospective as it authorises only future resumption after it came into 
ferce. It is not properly called retrospective "because a part of the re-
quisites for its action is drawn, from a time antecedent to its passing.'• 
The inams in the present case were resumable under s. 
44-B(2)(a)(i) 
though the alienations were made before 1934, [548 0-5498]. 
Maxwell on interpretation on Statutes 11th Ed., p. 211, relied on 
(iv) The appellants admitted. that they held the land from the inam-
. dars under a cowle lease and at no earlier stage did the appellan15 contend 
that the lease was not within the purview of s. 44-B(:)(a)(i). 
The 
plea that the lease was from year to year and hence outside the purview 
of the section

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