Skip to content

Matte Sarayya Vs. Vepparathi Vydynatham - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrust and Societies
Decided On
Reported inAIR1915Mad226; (1914)27MLJ57
AppellantMatte Sarayya
RespondentVepparathi Vydynatham
Cases ReferredPakkiam Pillay v. Seetharama Vadhyar
- .....of the land in the present suit and we must reverse the decree of the subordinate judge and dismiss the suit. parties pay their own costs.....

1. There is nothing here to suggest that the inam was granted by the temple authorities. Ex. D is the title-deed given by the Government to the person doing service in the temple, and makes the title conditional on the fulfilment of the terms of the grant. There is no ground on which the temple trustees can intervene to prevent the alienation of the inam. No doubt the Government might resume and regrant it if moved to do so, and it may be that if the present servant who is responsible for the alienation were removed from office, her successor in the office could recover the inam on the principle enunciated in Pakkiam Pillay v. Seetharama Vadhyar (1908) 14 M.L.J. 134. But the trustees cannot recover possession of the land in the present suit and we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the suit. Parties pay their own costs throughout.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //