TIIE ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION versus STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 14-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
c 
D 
• • 
i 
E 
-", 
F 
G 
H 
TIIE ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER 
; ; 
January 14, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
Madras Hindu Religious Endawments Act (2 of 1927), s. 44-B-Vall. 
dlty. 
' 
Melwara1n-Resumption by Gcrvermnent-Period of limitation. 
lnam fair retister-V alue of 
The suit lands were granted as inam for the perfonnance of puja in ·a 
Devasthanam. 
As they had been alienated, Revenue DiYisional 
Offi-
cer, acting under s. 44B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment> 
Act, 1926, resumed and regraoted them to the Devasthanam, holdinr 
that the inam consisted of both me/waram and kudiwaram. The appellant-
Mission, \Vhich was in possession of the lands as alienee, filed su:ts for 
" declaration that the inam coosisted only of the Me/waram, that the 
grant was a personal inam not liable to resumption under s. 44B and 
tllat the section itself was ultTa vires the Provincial Legislature. The trial 
Court held that the inam consisted of both warams, but that it was a 
pers<)nal inam outside the purview of s. 42B~ and therefore decided in 
favour of the Mission. 
On appeal, the High Court reversed bolh the 
findings and held that the section was intra vires. 
In appeals to this Court by the Mission and the Dernsthanam, 
, HELD : (i) A concatenation of the several po,vers of the Provincial 
Legislature undeu the Government of India Act, 1915, furnished adequate 
scope for comprehensive leg· slation on the subject of in ams connectCli "1ith 
religious and charitable endowments. 
Even if there was any doubt, the 
Governor-General in Council must ha\'e decided the question as per r. 4 
of the Devolution Rules under the Government of India Act, 1915, and 
put an end to any controversy on the matter. The section and the amend-
ment to it in 1946 would be sustained by s. 292 of the Government of 
lt:ldia Act, 1935, and tbP. power of the Provincial Legislature thereunder. 
Section 44B was thus fully within the competence of the Provincial Legis-
lature and the same would be tme of the corresponding section, s. 35 
of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, 
vis-a-vis the Constitution. 
[297 C-B, HJ 
(ii) The lnam Fair Register incorporated an official declaration which 
was the result of detailed inquiries. 
All evidence collected in respect 
of each inam was carefully sifted and considered before any conclusion 
was reached or declared. In the absence of positive and proper evidence 
t.o the contrary, such declaration must possess supreme importance. The 
High Court reached, on the admissible evidence, the right conclusion 
that the melwaram alone was the subject of the inain and that the inmn 
was always considered as remuneration for archaka service of the Devas-
thanam. The finding of the trial Court that it was. a personal irurm "".•• 
erroneous. 
[290 B; 294 D-E; 295 E, F] 
284 
SUPREME COL'JtT 
REPORTS 
[1966) 3 S.C.R. 
1Uunacha1am Cherty and othtr \'. Venlwlaclra/apatlrl, LR. 56 I.A. 
A 
204, applied. 
(in) 32 & 33 Viet. c. 29 only validated the title deeds granted by the 
lnam Commission. 
It did not create any contract, and thcrefo1e 
like 
any other grant which is resumable on breach of its conditions, this inarn 
... -. 
was resumable according to its terms and conditions. 
On aJienation, it 
was liable to re;umption under s. 448; and ns the resumption by the 
Governmeot was of the rne/waram only, and since there is no period of 
B 
limitation prescribed by any law, no question of adverse possession by the 
MiMion would arise. (298 E, F) 
Boddapa//i Jagannadltam v. Secretary of State, l.L.R. 27 Mad. 16 and 
Subranwn/am Chettiar v. Secretary of St111e, 28 M.L.J. 392, applied. 
(iv) By the resumption and rcgrant what was done was only to restore 
to the Devasthanam what it had lost. 
Therefore, it was not a case of 
putting a deoonminational religio1l• inslitutionn at an advantage. 
[297 
C 
F-0) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR!SD!C'f!0:-1 : Civil Appeals Nos. 389 of 
1964 and 69 of 1965. 
Appeals from the judgment and orders, dated December 14, 
1959 of the Madras High Court in A. S. Nos. 773 and 787 nnd 
Appeal No. 734 of 1954 respectively. 
S. G. Ramchandra Iyer, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and 
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 389/64) and 
Respondent No. l (in C. A. No. 69/65). 
Ran1:mradham Cherry and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent 
No. l (in C. A. No. 389/6

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