Skip to content


Sandhi Vinayagar Devastanam, Tirunelveli Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.A. No. 66 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Mad133
AppellantSandhi Vinayagar Devastanam, Tirunelveli
RespondentThe State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the appellant appealed to the inams abolition tribunal where also it failed......to the provisions of sub-section (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudiwaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land.'it is common ground that section 8(2) is applicable and, therefore, the provisions of section 8(1) are not applicable. section 8(2) provides that the following provisions, namely, section 8(2)(i) (a) and (b) and section 8(2)(ii) will apply in the case of lands in an iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity. it is found that the lands in question are iruvaram.....
Judgment:

Kailasam, Offg.C.J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Sandhivinayagar Devastanam, Tirunelveli, represented by its hereditary trustee against the order of the Inams Abolition Tribunal--Sub-Court, Tirunelveli in R. A. (I.A.T.) 72 of 1970.

2. The appellant-devastanam filed a petition before Settlement Tahsildar II, Koilpatti, for grant of a ryotwari patta. He negatived the claim of the appellant-devastanam. The appellant appealed to the Inams Abolition Tribunal where also it failed. Hence this appeal.

3. The fact which was found by the court below is that the relevant entries in the Inam Fair Register indicate that this is a case of Devadhayam Inam Grant consisting of both warams. The lower court agreed with the finding of the Settlement Tahasildar on this aspect. In dealing with the question as to who was in possession and enjoyment of the land, the lower court recorded a finding that the respondents were in possession. We are not dealing with this issue as it is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal. The decision in his case will depend upon the construction of Section 8 of Act 30 of 1963. Section 8 is the relevant section. Section 8(1) provides:

'Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudiwaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land.'

It is common ground that Section 8(2) is applicable and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8(1) are not applicable. Section 8(2) provides that the following provisions, namely, Section 8(2)(i) (a) and (b) and Section 8(2)(ii) will apply in the case of lands in an iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity. It is found that the lands in question are iruvaram minor inam lands granted for the support of a religious institution. The provisions that are applicable are contained in Section 8(2)(i). Where the land is transferred by way of sale and the transferee or person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive possession for a continuous period of sixty years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, or if he is in possession for a continuous period of 12 years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, after the payment of an amount prescribed in clause (b), he will be entitled to a ryotwari patta. In other cases, Section 8(2)(ii) governs. It provides that the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the land, there being no sale within sixty years as provided in Section 8(2)(i)(a) or within twelve years as provided in Section 8(2)(i)(b) in favour of the respondents. Section 8(2)(ii) being applicable, the religious institution can not be deprived of a patta. A reading of that sub-section itself would show that the appellant should succeed and the relief prayed for by him has to be granted. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

4. Appeal allowed.


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