Skip to content


Divi Punniah Vs. Goruntla Kotamma (Dead) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in38Ind.Cas.237
AppellantDivi Punniah
RespondentGoruntla Kotamma (Dead) and ors.
Cases Referred and Pingala Lakshmipathi v. Bommireddipalli Chalamayya
Excerpt:
grunt - charitable inams, resumption of effect of--enfranchisement and resumption, incidents of dealing with the case on principles applicable to cases of enfranchisement of personal or service inams. - .....there is a charge, not in the ownership of the land, but in the tenure, on which it is held. in cases of resumption the land previously the property of the trust, becomes the property of the person, to whom government grants it, subject of course to the obligations ordinarily attached to a ryotwari tenure. it has not been shown, and we do not think that government is bound to grant land which it has resumed to the former trustee or to any particular person. on the other hand, the matter is in its discretion and, if its grantee happens to be a former trustee, it is not to be assumed that the re-grant was made to him on that account or that any other person can claim to participate in the grant on the ground that he also shared in the original trustee's rights.4. taking this view.....
Judgment:

1. The dispute in this second appeal is regarding the right to a tope site. The tope was, in the words of the plaint 'transferred from charitable inams, by Government and assessed to jeroyati' or shortly 'resumed', patta being granted to the 1st defendant.

2. The lower Appellate Court, gave plaintiff a decree for a half share of the land on partition on the ground that she represented the interest of one of the two trustee: of the tope before its resumption, defendant representing the other. The lower Appellate Court applied Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 20 MK 339 and Pingala Lakshmipathi v. Bommireddipalli Chalamayya 80 M.S 431 dealing with the case on principles applicable to cases of enfranchisement of personal or service imams.

3. Those principles in our opinion afford no guidance in cases of resumption of charitable inums, In cases of enfranchisement there is a charge, not in the ownership of the land, but in the tenure, on which it is held. In cases of resumption the land previously the property of the trust, becomes the property of the person, to whom Government grants it, subject of course to the obligations ordinarily attached to a ryotwari tenure. It has not been shown, and we do not think that Government is bound to grant land which it has resumed to the former trustee or to any particular person. On the other hand, the matter is in its discretion and, if its grantee happens to be a former trustee, it is not to be assumed that the re-grant was made to him on that account or that any other person can claim to participate in the grant on the ground that he also shared in the original trustee's rights.

4. Taking this view we allow the second appeal and dismiss the suit with costs throughout.


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