{"id":84459,"date":"1964-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964"},"modified":"2018-01-04T05:06:01","modified_gmt":"2018-01-03T23:36:01","slug":"c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964","title":{"rendered":"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 516, \t\t 1964 SCR (8) 347<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nC.   PERIASWAMI GOUNDAN AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUNDARESA IYER AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/07\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  516\t\t  1964 SCR  (8) 347\n\n\nACT:\nInam grant-Suit for ejectment-Defendant raised plea of\tLost\nGrant-When presumption of Lost Grant arises-Whether grant is\nmelvaram or both varams --Right of Archakas-Whether Archakas\ncan claim remuneration in a suit for ejectment.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t filed\tsuits for the  recovery\t of  certain\nproperties  from  the possession of  the  respondents.\t The\nplaintiffs  were  the  trustees\t of  the  temples  and\t the\ndefendants  were the archakas and the alienees of  the\tsuit\nproperties.  These suits were based on title and the  relief\nasked  for  was the eviction of the archakas from  the\tsuit\nproperty as they, according to the plaintiffs,\t(appellants)\nhad no title to remain in possession  The plaintiff  claimed\nthat  the suit properties were the properties of  the  deity\nand that the defendants had no right therein.  The  archakas\nraised\tthe  plea that the title of the deity  was  confined\nonly to melvaram in the plaint-schedule lands and that\tthey\nhad  title to the Kudivarani.  Both the Trial Court and\t the\nHigh  Court  confirmed the title of the deity  to  both\t the\ninterests (Varams) and negatived the title of the defendant-\nArchakas.   The High Court also held that the archakas\twere\nentitled  to have a portion of the said properties  allotted\nto  them towards their remuneration for the services to\t the\ntemples and gave a decree directing the division of the said\nproperties  into  two  halves and putting  the\tarchakas  in\npossession  of\tone half.  Against this decree of  the\tHigh\nCourt  both  the  archakas  and\t the  trustees\t(appellants)\npreferred cross appeals to this Court.\n348\nThe main point for consideration was whether the High Court,\nhaving\theld that the title to the suit property  vested  in\nthe  deity, had jurisdiction to compel the trustees  of\t the\ntemple to put the archakas in possession of specified extent\nof property towards their remuneration.\nHeld:(i)  The  principle of a Lost Grant  can  only  be\ninvoked\t where there is no acceptable evidence of the  terms\nof  the\t grant.\t In the present case there is no  scope\t for\ninvoking  the  doctrine of Lost Grant as the  terms  of\t the\ngrant  are clear from the recitals in the lnam register\t and\nthe  inam statement, which conclusively establish that\tboth\nthe Varams were granted to the deity.\nSankaranarayana Pillayan v. H.R.E. Board, Madras I.L.R. 1949\nMad.  585,  Buddu  Satyanarayana  v.  Konduru  Venkatapayya<\/a>:\n[1953] S.C.R. 1001, Maginiram Sitaram v. Kasturbai Manibhai,\n(1921)\tL.R.  49 I.A. 54 and Mohamed Muzafar Ali  Musavi  V.\nJabeda Khatun, (1930) L.R. 57 A. 125, relied on.\n(ii)The\t High  Court erred in making an allocation  of\tthe\nlands  between the trustees and the archakas in a  suit\t for\nejectment because there was absolutely no material either in\nthe   pleadings\t or  in\t the  evidence\tto  make  any\tsuch\napportionment.\t'Me High Court had De option but to  deliver\npossession to the plaintiffs who had established their title\nto the suit properties.\t In a suit for framing a scheme\t for\ntemple a court may in an appropriate case put the archaka in\npossession  of\ta portion of the temple\t lands\ttowards\t his\nremuneration   for   services  of  the\ttemple;\t  but\tsuch\nconsiderations are out of place in a suit for ejectment.\nBrahmayya  v. Rajaswaraswami Temple, A.I.R. 1953 ',fad.\t 580\nas Venkatadri V. Seshacharlu, I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 46.  referred\nto.\n(iii)On\t the  facts of this case it was held  that  the\nconduct of the archakas, was consistent with the recitals in\nthe  inam  register, namely, that what was  granted  to\t the\ndeity  was the land i.e. both the Varams and that  they\t had\nbeen  put  in enjoyment the said land in their\tcapacity  as\narchakas   and\tde  facto  trustees.   They  could  not\t  by\nmortgaging  or otherwise alienating the property  claim\t any\nright  in derogation of the title of the deity.\t  They\talso\ncannot claim any right because their names are mentioned  in\naddition  to  deity in the Inam register.   Their  names  in\naddition  to  the  deity  are  mentioned  as  they  were  in\npossession  of\tthe  land  in their  capacity  as  de  facto\ntrustees.\nArunachalam  Chetti  v.\t Venkata  Chalapathi  Guruswamligal,\n(1920)\tI.L.R. 43 Mad. 253 and Secretary of State for  India\nv. Vidhya Thirta Swamiga, I.L.R. 1942 Mad. 893, referred to.\nNarayanamurthi\tV.  Achaya Sastrulu, A.I.R.  1925  Mad.\t 411\nrelied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.\t 646-652  of
\n1960.\n<\/p>\n
349<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated November 28, 1962
\nof  the\t Madras\t High Court in 385, 259, 260,  385  of\t1947
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
A.V.  Viswanatha  Sastri and R. Gopalakrishnan,\t for  the
\nappellant  (in C.A. Nos. 648, 649 and 650 of 1960)  and\t for
\nthe respondents (in C.A. Nos. 651 and 652 of 1960).
\nT.V. R. Tatachari, for respondents Nos. 1. 2. 5 and 6 (in
\nC.A.  No.  648 of 1960) and appellants (in C.A. No.  652  of
\n1960).\n<\/p>\n
S.T.  Desai,  K.  Jayaram  and\tR.  Ganapathy  Iyer,  for
\nrespondents  No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 to 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 and  21
\n(in  C.A. No. 649 of 1960) respondents Nos. 1, 2 and  8\t (in
\nC.A. No. 650 of 1960) and the appellants (in C.A. No. 651 of
\n1960).\n<\/p>\n
July 31, 1964.\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSUBBA RAO, J. These five appeals by certificate arise out of
\nOriginal  Suits Nos. 183, 184 and 185 of 1945 filed  in\t the
\nCourt of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbator, Madras State.
\nO.S. No. 183 of 1945 relates to properties claimed on behalf
\nof  Sri\t Chowleswaraswami temple.   Periaswami\tGoundar\t and
\nSamana\tGoundar,  the plaintiffs in the said suit,  are\t the
\ntrustees  of the said temple.  They filed the suit  for\t the
\nrecovery   of  the  plaint-scheduled  properties  from\t the
\ndefendants  who are the archakas and the alienees from\tthem
\non  the ground that the said properties were the  properties
\nof  the deity and that the defendants had no right  therein.
\nThey  also  claimed mesne profits for a period\tof  3  years
\nprior to the suit.  The defendants filed a written statement
\nadmitting the claim of the deity to the melvaram interest in
\nthe  properties\t but  claimed that the\tarchakas  owned\t the
\nkudivaram therein and that some of the said properties\twere
\nvalidly transferred to the alienees.\n<\/p>\n
O.S.  No.  184 of 1945 was filed in the said  Court  by\t the
\ntrustees of Sri Pongali Amman temple situated in the village
\nof Vengambur for the recovery of the properties
\n350<\/span>
\nmentioned  in  the  schedule attached to  the  plaint.\t The
\ndefendants,  who  are the archakas and alienees\t from  them,
\ninter\talia,  pleaded\tthat  only  melvaram  in  the\tsaid
\nproperties  was granted to the deity and that  the  archakas
\nowned  the  kudivaram  therein and  that  they\thad  validly
\nalienated their interest in the said properties in favour of
\nthe alienees.\n<\/p>\n
O.S.  No.  185 of 1945 was filed in the same  Court  by\t the
\ntrustees  of  Sri Varadaraja Perumal\ttemple\tsituated  in
\nVengambur  village .  The plaintiffs sought to\trecover\t the
\nproperties  mentioned in the schedule annexed to the  plaint
\nfrom  the  archakas and the alienees from them on  the\tsame
\ngrounds and the defendants raised similar pleas.  It is\t not
\nnecessary  to mention other defences raised in\tthe  written
\nstatements  filed in the three suits as nothing\t turns\tupon
\nthem in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The main issue in O.S. No. 183 of 1945, O.S. No. 184 of 1945
\nand O.S. No. 185 of 1945 was whether the inam grants made to
\nthe  three  temples  consisted of both\tvarams\tor  melvaram
\nalone.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Subordinate Judge tried the said\tsuits  along
\nwith  two  other  suits\t and  delivered\t a  common  judgment
\ntherein.   On the said issue he held in all the three  suits
\nthat  the  grants to the three deities\tcomprised  both\t the
\nvarams.\t  He further held that the alienations made  by\t the
\narchakas prior to May 16, 1931, were binding on the trustees
\nof  the\t respective temples and that  the  alienations\tmade
\nsubsequent to that date were liable to be set aside.  In the
\nresult\tthe learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree in\teach
\nof   the  suits\t for  possession  of   the   plaint-schedule
\nproperties except those covered by the alienations  effected
\nbefore\tMay 16, 1931.  He also decreed mesne profits to\t the
\nplaintiffs  for a period of 3 years prior to the  suits\t and
\nalso  subsequent profits from the date of the suits  to\t the
\ndate  of  delivery of possession at the rate fixed  by\thim.
\nThe  defendants in the said suits preferred appeals  to\t the
\nHigh Court of Madras, being Appeals Nos. 259, 260 and 385 of
\n1947.\tThe said appeals were heard by a Division  Bench  of
\nthe  said  High Court, consisting of Satyanarayana  Rao\t and
\nRajagopalan, JJ.  The High Court agreed with the
\n351<\/span>
\ntrial  court  on the finding relating to the nature  of\t the
\ngrants\tto  the\t temples, that is to say it  held  that\t the
\ngrants\tto  the temples comprised both the  varams,  namely,
\nmelvaram  and kudivaram.  The learned Judges, for the  first
\ntime,  though  there  was  no  pleading,  no  issue  and  no
\ncontention  in the trial Court, held that the archakas\twere
\nentitled  to have a portion of the said properties  allotted
\nto  them towards their remuneration for the services to\t the
\ntemples and gave a decree directing the division of the said
\nproperties  into  two  halves and putting  the\tarchakas  in
\npossession of one half.\t They did not disturb the finding of
\nthe learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the\talienations,
\nthat is they maintained the alienations made before May\t 16,
\n1931.\n<\/p>\n
Against the decree of the High Court in A.S. No. 259 of 1947
\nand A.S. No. 385 of 1947 both the archakas and the  trustees
\npreferred appeals to this Court questioning the\t correctness
\nof the decree of the High Court in so far as it went against
\nthem.  Against the decree in A.S. No. 260 of 1947 no  appeal
\nwas  filed  by the archakas, but the trustees  preferred  an
\nappeal questioning that part of the decree directing a\tpart
\nof the properties to be put in possession of the archakas.
\nMr.  Desai and Mr. Tatachari, appearing for the archakas  in
\nthe  different\tappeals, contended that\t the  Courts  below,
\nhaving\tregard to the consistent and continuous\t conduct  of
\nenjoyment  as  absolute\t owners of  the\t properties  by\t the
\narchakas  spread  over a long period of\t time,\tshould\thave
\ninvoked\t the doctrine of lost grant particularly when  there
\nwas  no\t clear and convincing evidence of the terms  of\t the
\ngrant.\t Alternatively, they argued that the  Courts  should
\nhave  held, on a fair construction of the recitals found  in
\nthe  inam  statements  and  the\t inam  register,  that\tonly
\nmelvaram was granted to the deity.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Viswanatha\t Sastri, learned counsel for  the  trustees,
\ncontested  this\t position.  He would say that  there  is  no
\nscope  for  invoking  the  doctrine of\tlost  grant  as\t the
\nrecitals in the inam register and the inam statement,  which
\nare of great evidentiary value, conclusively establish\tthat
\nboth the
\n352<\/span>
\nvarams were granted to the deity and that all the documents,
\nor  most  of them, disclosing the conduct  of  the  archakas
\nwould  support the conclusion that both the varams  were  so
\ngranted to the deity.\n<\/p>\n
At  the outset it would be convenient to notice briefly\t the
\nscope of the doctrine of lost grant, as the learned  counsel
\nfor  the  appellants  have strongly  relied  upon  it.\t The
\ndoctrine  of  lost  grant  with\t its  limitations  has\tbeen
\nsuccinctly  explained by the Judicial Committee in  Sankara-
\nnarayana Pillayan v. H.R.E. Board, Madras(1).  The temple in
\nthat case had 4 kattalais.  Though the temple had a  general
\ntrustee,  each\tof  the kattalais was in  the  charge  of  a
\nspecial\t trustee  or  trustees.\t In regard  to\tone  of\t the
\nkattalais  after meeting all the expenses there\t remained  a
\nsurplus which the trustees claimed for their own benefit and
\nin  fact they were utilizing the surplus for the benefit  of
\ntheir  families.   It was contended by the  appellants\tthat
\nthey  were  the owners of the suit  properties,\t which\twere
\nsubject\t only to a charge in favour of the kattalai for\t the
\nperformance  of\t the  worship according\t to  the  prescribed
\nscale.\t The Judicial Committee, after noticing the  earlier
\ndecisions, observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The presumption, it was stated, of an  origin
\n\t      in some lawful title which the Courts have  so
\n\t      often  readily made in order to  support\tpos-
\n\t      sessory  rights  long  and  quietly   enjoyed,
\n\t      arises  where  no\t actual proof  of  title  is
\n\t      forthcoming,  and the rule has to be  resorted
\n\t      to because of the failure of actual  evidence.
\n\t      In the present case, where there is ample\t and
\n\t      convincing  proof of the nature of the  grant,
\n\t      the  object of the endowment and the  capacity
\n\t      of   the\t persons  claiming  the\t  user\t and
\n\t      enjoyment,  the  rule  can  hardly  have\t any
\n\t      application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the result the Judicial Committee held that the  proper-
\nties  were granted only to the deity and that  the  trustees
\nhad no claim to any surplus income.  The said principle\t has
\nbeen  accepted\tby  this Court\tin  Buddu  Satyanarayana  V.
\nKonduru Venkatapayya<\/a>(2).  There a question similar to
\n(1) I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 585,605-606.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1953) 1 S.C.R. 1001, 1003.\n<\/p>\n
353<\/span><\/p>\n
that  now  raised  was considered.   The  archakas  claimed,
\nrelying\t upon  the doctrine of lost grant,  that  under\t the
\noriginal inam grant only the melvaram interest was given  to
\nthe deity.  Rejecting that contention, Das, J., speaking for
\nthe Court, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There is no doubt, on the authorities, that a
\n\t      presumption of an origin in some lawful  title
\n\t      may  in  certain\tcircumstances  be  made\t  to
\n\t      support  possessory  rights long\tand  quietly
\n\t      enjoyed  where  no actual proof  of  title  is
\n\t      forthcoming but it is equally well established
\n\t      that  that presumption cannot ‘be\t made  where
\n\t      there  is sufficient evidence  and  convincing
\n\t      proof  of\t the  nature of\t the  grant  an\t the
\n\t      persons to whom it was made.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  basis  of this doctrine is clearly brought out  by\t two
\njudgments  of  the Judicial  Committee.\t  Lord\tBuck-master,
\ndelivering  the judgment in Maginiram Sitaram v.  Kasturbhai
\nManibhai(1), observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “At  the lapse of 100 years, when every  party
\n\t      to  the original transaction has passed  away,
\n\t      and   it\tbecomes\t completely  impossible\t  to
\n\t      ascertain\t what were the\tcircumstances  which
\n\t      caused  the original grant to be made,  it  is
\n\t      only  following  the policy which\t the  Courts
\n\t      always  adopt, of securing as far as  possible
\n\t      quiet possession to people who are in apparent
\n\t      lawful  holding of an estate, to\tassume\tthat
\n\t      the  grant  was lawfully\tand  not  unlawfully
\n\t      made.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Viscount Sumner in Mohamed Muzafar Ali  Musavi
\n\t      v.  Jabeda  Khatun(2) said much  to  the\tsame
\n\t      effect thus
\n\t      “The  presumption of an origin in some  lawful
\n\t      title, which the Courts have so often  readily
\n\t      made  in order to support\t possessory  rights,
\n\t      long  and\t quietly enjoyed,  where  no  actual
\n\t      proof of title is forthcoming, is one which is
\n\t      not a mere
\n\t      (1)  [1921] L.R.49 I.A. 54.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      51 Sup.  Court.-23
\n\t      (2) [1930] L.R. 57 I.A. 125.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      354<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      branch of the law of evidence.  It is resorted
\n\t      to because of the failure of actual evidence.”
\n\t      It   is,\ttherefore,  clear  that\t  the\tsaid
\n\t      principle\t can only be invoked where there  is
\n\t      no  acceptable  evidence of the terms  of\t the
\n\t      grant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In these appeals the trustees filed copies of the relevant
\nextracts of the inam register and the\tstatements filed  by
\nthe  ancestors of the  archakas during the inam\t enquiry  in
\nsupport of the contention that both the varams were  granted
\nto the deity.  The evidentiary value of the recitals in\t the
\ninam register has been emphasized by the Judicial  Committee
\nin more than one decision.  In Arunachalam Chetti v. Venkata
\nChalapathi Guruswamigal(1), the Judicial Committee expressed
\nits  view on the evidentiary value of the recitals  in\tinam
\nregister thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is true that the making of this  register
\n\t      was  for the ultimate purpose  of\t determining
\n\t      whether  or not the lands were tax free.\t But
\n\t      it must not be forgotten that the\t preparation
\n\t      of this register was a great act of state\t and
\n\t      its preparation and contents were the  subject
\n\t      of   much\t consideration\t under\t elaborately
\n\t      detailed\treports\t and minutes.  It is  to  be
\n\t      remembered   that\t the   Inam   Commissioners,
\n\t      through  their officials, made enquiry on\t the
\n\t      spot,  heard evidence and examined  documents,
\n\t      and, with regard to each individual  property,
\n\t      the Government was put in possession not\tonly
\n\t      of  the conclusion come to as to\twhether\t the
\n\t      land  was tax free, but of a statement of\t the
\n\t      history  and  tenure of the  property  itself.
\n\t      While their Lordships do not doubt that such a
\n\t      report would not displace actual and authentic
\n\t      evidence\tin individual cases, yet  the  Board
\n\t      when  such  is not available, cannot  fail  to
\n\t      attach  the utmost importance, as part of\t the
\n\t      history  of the property, to  the\t information
\n\t      set forth in the inam register.”
\n\t      (1)   [1920] I.L.R. 43 Mad. 253.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      355<\/span><\/p>\n
In the latest decision of the Judicial Committee reported in
\nSankaranayana  Pillayan’s  case(1), it reiterated  the\tsame
\nposition  when it said:\n<\/p>\n
“The question arose in a recent case  before this Board with
\nreference to a Madras inam [see Secretary of State for India
\nv.  Vidhya Thirta Swamigal(2)], where it was held  that\t the
\ntitle  deeds  and  the\tentries in  the\t inam  register\t are
\nevidence  of the true intent and effect of  the\t transaction
\nand of the character of the right which was being recognized
\nand  continued.\t  The entries in the inam register  and\t the
\ndescription   of  the  inamdar\ttherein\t were  accepted\t  as
\nindications  of the nature and quantum of the right and\t the
\ninterest  created  in the land.”This view  of  the  Judicial
\nCommittee  has been accepted and applied by the Madras\tHigh
\nCourt in many decisions when it was called upon to decide on
\nthe  conflicting  claims of a trustee and a archaka  to\t the
\nproperties  dealt with in the inam registers.
\nThe documents  relating to Sri Pongali Amman temple are Exs.
\nP-2 and P-3.  Ex.  P-2 is the statement filed by an ancestor
\nof the present archakas before the Inam Commissioner.  It is
\nof  the\t year  1862.  Ex.  P-3 is an extract  of  ,the\tinam
\nregister.   As\tobserved  by  the  Judicial  Committee,\t the
\nentries\t made  in  the said register are the  result  of  an
\nelaborate  enquiry  based upon oral evidence,  on  the\tspot
\nenquiry and scrutiny of available accounts and records.\t The
\ninam  statement is only one of the pieces of evidence  which
\nthe Inam Commissioner might have taken into consideration in
\ncompiling the inam register.  The recitals in the  statement
\nmust,  therefore,  give Place to the recitals  in  the\tinam
\nregister, though an attempt shall be made to harmonize them,
\nif possible.  Before considering the recitals in Ex.  P-3 it
\nis  necessary to bear in mind the common case i.e., that  it
\nis  the case of both the archakas and the trustees that\t Ex.
\nP-3  deals  only  with the property that was  given  to\t the
\ndeity.\tBut the dispute is as regards the extent of the
\n(1)  I.L.R. [1948] Mad. 585.\t(2) 1.L.R [1942]  Mad.\t893,
\n908 (P.C.).\n<\/p>\n
356<\/span><\/p>\n
interest  in the property that was given to the deity.\t WaS
\nit  only the Melvaram in the said property that was  granted
\nto  the\t deity or was it that both the varams  therein\twere
\ngranted\t to the deity.\tNow let us give a close look to\t the
\nrecitals  under the various columns in Ex.  P-3.  The  first
\nmajor  head is “class, extent and value of inam”.  The\tsaid
\nmajor head is divided into 7 sub-heads.\t in col. 2 under the
\nsub-head  “General  class to which the\tinam  belongs”,\t the
\nentry is “religious”.  In col. 3 under the head “the  survey
\nnumber and the name of the field or fields comprised in\t the
\ngrant-dry, wet or garden”, the particulars of the lands\t are
\ngiven.\tThis entry shows that except a small extent which is
\na  garden  the\trest is dry land.  These  details  are\tmore
\nconsistent  with  the grant being of both  the\tvarams\tthan
\nbeing  of  mere melvaram.  If it is of melvaram\t alone,\t the
\nquality\t of the field is quite irrelevant.  Sub-heads  4,  5
\nand  6 show that the extent is about 18 acres and  99  cents
\nand the assessment is Rs. 24-14.-5. These recitals leave the
\nimpression  that  the lane, was a dry land bearing  a  small
\nassessment  of Rs. 24-14-5 and the, income  therefrom  could
\nnot  have been appreciable in those days.  The\tsecond\tmain
\nhead is “description, tenure and documents in support of the
\ninam”.\t The  entries under the various columns\t under\tthis
\nhead  establish that the dry lands bearing an assessment  of
\nRs. 24-14-5 described in cols. 3. 4, 5 and 6 were granted as
\nDevadayam   to\tthe  deity  Pongali  Amman  permanently\t  by
\nMadurayar Paligar of Midura.  The of the grant is not known;
\nbut  even in the accounts of 1209 F. the name of  the  deity
\nwas entered the grantee . The third major head is “name\t and
\nrelationship  of the original grantee and of subsequent\t and
\npresent heirs-length of possession”.  In Col. 13 and 15 the,
\nname  of  the deity alone is given.  In Col.  16  under\t the
\nheading\t “name\tand age” and in Col. 17\t under\tthe  heading
\n“place\tof residence” only the name of the deity  is  given.
\nBelow  the name of the deity the name of the Pujari  “Pujari
\nMuttandi,  age 45” is given.  In Cols. 18 and 1 9 under\t the
\nheading\t  “relation   to  orginal  grantee   or\t  subsequent
\nregistered  holders”  and “surviving heirs  of\tthe  present
\nincumbent” no entry is made.  Obviously no entries are\tmade
\nunder  these sub-heads, as the deity cannot have  relations.
\nThe mention of Pujari Muttandi in the
\n357<\/span>
\ncontext of other entries indicates that he was in charge  of
\nthe  temple.  If his name was mentioned because he had\tsome
\ninterest in the land the other suitable entries in regard to
\nhis  relations would have been made under the relevant\tsub-
\nheads.\tIndeed it is not the case of the archakas that\tthey
\nhave  some  interest in the melvaram.  If the  document\t was
\nconcerned  only with the melvaram interest,  strictly  there
\nwas no place for the archaka in the document, for he had  no
\ninterest therein.  His name was mentioned only as he was the
\nperson\twho was in de facto management of the properties  of
\nthe deity.  In Col. 21 under the heading “Deputy Collector’s
\nopinion\t and recommendation”, the entry is “To be  confirmed
\npermanently  to\t the Pagoda so long as it is well  kept\t up,
\nsubject\t to the existing jodi of Rs. 3-1-7”.  Under Col.  22
\nthe   inam  is\tconfirmed  to  the  Pagoda.   A\t  reasonable
\ninterpretation of the recitals in this document leads to the
\nonly conclusion that the Inam Commissioner was dealing\twith
\nthe  entire  interest in the land, the\tparticulars  whereof
\nwere  given therein.  There is no evidence that at the\ttime
\nthe  grant  was\t made  the  archakas  or  any  others\twere
\nkudivaramdars.\t But  it  is said that Ex.   P-2,  the\tinam
\nstatement,  filed by the then archakas would establish\tthat
\nwhat  was -ranted was only the melvaram.  There, in  Col.  2
\nunder  the  head “Name of the inamdar entered in  dowle\t and
\nnames of the present enjoyer” the following entry is found:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Pongaliamman  poosari Kuppaiyandi\t Muthuveeran
\n\t      as per paimash entry.  For fields Nos. 595 and
\n\t      597  no poosari’s name is mentioned.   Present
\n\t      (enjoyer) Pongaliamman poosari Muthandi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tsaid  that  pujari is  shown  as  the  enjoyer\tand,
\ntherefore, the deity has no interest in the enjoyment of the
\nland.  The deity was obviously represented by the pujari who
\nwas  the  de  facto trustee.  He was in\t possession  of\t the
\nproperty in his capacity as the de facto trustee.  In  those
\ncircumstances if the pujari of the temple is described as an
\nenjoyer,  it can only mean that he was in possession of\t the
\nland  on  behalf of the temple.\t  Whatever  ambiguity  there
\nmight be in the said recital it is dispelled by the entry in
\nCol.  12 under the head “Particulars of present\t enjoyment”,
\nnamely
\n358<\/span>
\n“By  directly  cultivating  this land  selling\tthe  produce
\nderived\t therefrom  and\t applying the sale  proceed  to\t the
\nservice of the deity.\tand my agnates have been  performing
\npooja and enjoying the said land according to the conditions
\nof  the\t grant”.   This\t entry\tis  couched  in\t clear\t and
\nunambiguous terms.  It describes the nature of the enjoyment
\nof  the\t land by the archaka; it clearly says  that  he\t was
\ncultivating the land, selling the produce and from the\tsale
\nproceeds  he  was  doing  the  services\t to  the  deity\t  in
\naccordance  with the terms of the grant.  If the  deity\t was
\nentitled only to the melvaram, this recital is\tinconsistent
\nwith it.  The recital indicates that the entire land was the
\nsubject-matter of the grant in favour of the deity and\tthat
\nthe produce from that land was utilized for the services  to
\nthe deity.  Strong reliance is placed upon the entry in col.
\n13 under the head “Income derived from the manibam;  whether
\nsarvadambla  or jodigai, if jodigai, how much”.\t  The  entry
\nis, “Income Rs. 24-14-5; Jodigai Rs. 3-1-7.” Basing upon the
\nsaid  entries the argument is that Ex.\tP-3 shows  that\t the
\nassessment  on\tthe  land  was\tRs.  24-14-5  and  Ex.\t P-2
\nindicates  that the same amount was the income derived\tfrom
\nthe inam and, therefore, what was granted in inam could have
\nbeen  only the assessment i.e., Rs. 24-14-5.  This  argument
\nis farfetched and based on a slender foundation.  One of the
\nmain  objects of the inam enquiry was to  ascertain  whether
\nthe  alienated lands were free of tax or not.\tThe  archaka
\nwho was in possession of the land on behalf of the deity had
\nto give information as regards the tax payable in respect of
\nthe land in his possession.  In that context the  expression
\n“income\t derived  from\tthe  manibam”  can  only  mean\t the
\nassessment  fixed  on  the land.  After\t stating  that\tfull
\nassessment  was only Rs. 24-14-5 the archaka stated that  he
\nwas  not paying the entire amount, but was paying  only\t the
\njodigai\t of Rs. 3-1-7.\tSo understood the said recitals\t fit
\ninto the scheme of other recitals in the said statement\t and
\nthose  found in Ex.  P-3.  A similar argument  was  advanced
\nbefore\tthis Court in Buddu Satyanarayan’s case(1)  and\t was
\nrejected.  Das, J., observed at p. 1006 thus:
\n(1) [1953] S.C.R 1001
\n359<\/span>
\n\t      “Apart  from these points of  distinction\t the
\n\t      decision\trelied on by the  learned  Attorney-
\n\t      General  appears\tto  us\tto  be\tof  doubtful
\n\t      authority.   As will appear from the  passages
\n\t      quoted  above, the decision rested mainly,  if
\n\t      not  entirely, on the fact that the amount  of
\n\t      assessment  and the amount of income were\t the
\n\t      same  and\t the conclusion was drawn  that\t the
\n\t      Inam  grant  comprised  only  of\tthe  revenue
\n\t      assessment, i.e., of melvaram rights.  We\t are
\n\t      unable to follow the reasoning.”\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, hold that, from the recitals in the said\t two
\ndocuments,  what  was granted to the deity was of  both\t the
\nvarams.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel  for  the archakas  relied  upon  the\tlong
\npossession  and enjoyment of the suit lands by the  archakas
\nand their ancestors in support of their contention that\t the
\nmelvaram  alone could have been granted to the deity.\tLong
\nenjoyment is also consistent with an arrangement that  might
\nhave  been  entered into between the grantor  and  the\tthen
\nfunctioning  archaka  or  archakas  having  regard  to\t the
\nconditions  prevailing\tthen.  The lands granted  were\tcom-
\nparatively  of\tsmall extent and they were  dry\t lands.\t  In
\nthose  days  the income from the said lands must  have\tbeen
\nvery  insignificant.  There was no trustee for\tthe  temple.
\nIn  those circumstances it is, more likely that the  grantor
\nwould have put the land in the possession of the archaka  so
\nthat  he might, from and out of the produce from  the  land,
\nmaintain   the\ttemple,\t perform  the  puja  and  meet\t the
\nexpenditure connected with the puja and also pay himself the
\nremuneration  for  his services to the temple.\tThat  was  a
\nconvenient  arrangement\t which was adopted in  many  of\t the
\nsmall  temples in that part of the country.   This  practice
\nwas  recorded  with  clarity by the  Madras  High  Court  in
\nNarayanamurthi\tv.  Achaya Sastrulu(1).\t In dealing  with  a
\nsimilar argument the learned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  evidence of user and\t enjoyment,  however
\n\t      long uninterrupted and unquestioned, would  be
\n\t      evidence of the grant only iN the absence of
\n\t      (1)   A.I.R [1925] Mad.411,412-413-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      360<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      any reliable or cogent evidence with regard to
\n\t      the  terms of the grant itself or in the\tcase
\n\t      of any ambiguity in the grant.  It seems to be
\n\t      clear that almost very recently the suit lands
\n\t      yielded  only  just what\twas  sufficient\t for
\n\t      nitya  naivedyam\tor the\tdaily  worship.\t  No
\n\t      doubt  in such a state of things not only\t the
\n\t      persons  who established the temples and\tmade
\n\t      the  endowments but succeeding generations  of
\n\t      worshippers would have allowed the archakas to
\n\t      cultivate\t the  lands  and  take\tthe   income
\n\t      performing  the puja as it was  obviously\t the
\n\t      most  convenient\tmode of\t arranging  for\t the
\n\t      worship  of  the deities and  the\t payment  of
\n\t      remuneration of the archaka service.”
\n\t      “But  when the income accruing from the  lands
\n\t      came  to be considerable and the archakas,  by
\n\t      reason of old habits and following their fore-
\n\t      fathers, claimed the lands and surplus profits
\n\t      therefrom to be their own, it was only natural
\n\t      that  the\t worshippers should  take  steps  to
\n\t      secure\tthe   surplus\tincome\t  for\t the
\n\t      institutions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  observations  are  very\tapposite  and  they  clearly
\ndescribe  the circumstances under which the archakas of\t the
\ntemples\t were  allowed\tto be in possession  of\t the  temple
\nlands.\t If that was the situation under which the  archakas
\ncame  into possession of the lands, they were  certainly  in
\nthe  position  of de facto trustees and they  could  not  by
\nmortgaging or otherwise alienating the properties claim\t any
\nrights in derogation of the title of the deity.\t Indeed\t the
\ndocuments on which the learned counsel relied contain  clear
\nand  unambiguous admission on the part of the archakas\tthat
\nthe land itself was the property of the deity.\tExs.   P-12,
\nP-13, P-14 and P-15 are copies of mortgages executed by\t the
\narchakas.    Under  these  documents  the  land\t  in   their
\npossession was mortgaged and it was described as  paditharam
\nManyam.\t  They\talso  disclosed\t hat  the  paditharam  paddy
\ndirected  to  be paid to the temple was more than  the\tkist
\npayable thereon to the Government.  In the prior proceedings
\ni.e., applications preferred by the
\n\t\t\t    361<\/span>
\narchakas  for declaring the temples as excepted ones,  there
\nwas  no\t claim that the melvaram alone was  granted  to\t the
\ndeity.\t In other proceedings the archakas claimed that\t the
\nlands were service inams, but they did not come forward with
\nthe  present  plea  that melvaram only was  granted  to\t the
\ndeity.\tFurther, pattas for the suit lands were\t transferred
\nwithout\t any  objection of the archakas in the name  of\t the
\ndeities\t in 1939 and the archakas also paid contribution  to
\nthe  Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board on\t tile  basis
\nthat both the varams belonged to the deity.  The conduct  of
\nthe archakas, therefore, is consistent with the recitals  in
\nthe  inam  register, namely, that what was  granted  to\t the
\ndeity was the land i.e., both the varams, and that they\t had
\nbeen  put  in possession and enjoyment of the said  land  in
\ntheir capacity as archakas and de facto trustees.
\nLearned counsel for the appellants relied upon an order made
\nby  A.R.C. Westlake, Collector of Coimbatore, on  April\t 14,
\n1941, wherein he held that only melvaram was granted to\t the
\ndeity.\t That  order  came to be made  under  the  following
\ncircumstances.\t The  trustees appointed by  the  Coimbatore
\nDistrict  Temple Committee filed an application\t before\t the
\nRevenue\t Division Officer under s. 44-B11(a) of\t the  Madras
\nHindu  Religious  Endowments (Amendment) Act,  1934,  for  a
\ndeclaration  that the alienations of portions of  inam\tland
\nattached to the temple were null and void and for resumption
\nand regrant of the same to the deity.  One of the issues  in
\nthe  application was whether the inam comprised melvaram  or
\nboth melvaram and Kudivaram.  The Revenue -Division  Officer
\nheld  that the inam comprised both the varams.\t On  appeal,
\nthe  Collector\tcame  to the  contrary\tconclusion.   But  a
\nperusal\t of  the order shows that his conclusion  was  based
\nupon  pure  surmises.  The Collector did not  refer  to\t any
\ndocument or evidence for his conclusion.  The trustees filed
\na  suit in the Court of the Subordinate\t Judge,\t Coimbatore,
\nfor  a\tdeclaration  that the inam grant in  favour  of\t the
\nplaint\t temple\t comprised  both  the  varams  The   learned
\nSubordinate  Judge  held  that s. 44-B of  the\tAct  had  no
\napplication  as\t the grant was to the deity and\t was  not  a
\nservice inam.  The result of this litigation was that  there
\nwas no final decision on the
\n362<\/span>
\nquestion whether the grant was of both the varams or only of
\nthe melvaram.  These proceedings cannot, therefore, be\t  of
\nany  evidentiary value in this case.  On a consideration  of
\nthe  entire  evidence we agree with the\t conclusion  arrived
\nat  by the High Court that the grant to the deity  comprised
\nboth the varams in the suit lands.\n<\/p>\n
Now  coming  to the appeals relating  to  chowleswara  swami
\ntemple,\t the factual and legal position is exactly the\tsame
\nas  in\tthe  case of Pongaliamman temple  Ex.\tP-2  is\t the
\nstatement  made\t before the Inam Commissioner  by  the\tthen
\narchaka and Ex.\t P-3 is the extract from the Inam  register.
\nUnder  the  relevant entries in the  inam  register,  survey
\nnumbers, extent, quality and the assessment of the  subject-
\nmatter\tof  the grant are given.  The land is  described  as
\nDevadayam and is stated to have been granted for the support
\nof the pagoda of Chowleswaraswami.  The nature of the  grant
\nis  described  as permanent.  The date of the grant  is\t not
\nknown.\tThe grantor’s name is given as Maduraiyar Paligar of
\nMadura.\t  The  name  of the original  grantee  is  given  as
\nChowleswaraswami.   The grant of the land described  earlier
\nis confirmed permanently to the pagoda as long as it is well
\nkept  subject to the existing jodi of Rs. 24-8-2.  The\tonly
\nmention of archaka is in col. 17 under the head “Particulars
\nregarding  present  owner”  and\t the  entry  thereunder\t  is
\n“Chowleswaraswami,  stanika Muttaiyan”.\t The  other  columns
\nwhere  the  relationship  of  the  present  owner  with\t the
\nprevious  owners is expected to be recorded are\t left  blank
\nfor the obvious reason that the said columns are  irrelevant
\nin  the case of a deity.  The archaka’s name in addition  to
\nthe  deity is mentioned as he was in possession of the\tland
\nin  his\t capacity  as  de facto\t trustee.   The\t deity\tmust
\nnecessarily  have to be represented by somebody and that  he
\ncan only be the stanika who was managing the temple and\t its
\nproperties.   The relevant entries in the inam\tregister  do
\nnot  countenance any contention that the  melvaram  interest
\nonly  in the land was granted and that was confirmed to\t the
\ndeity.\t If  the  melvaram was\tgranted\t or  confirmed,\t the
\nrecitals would have been different.  The corresponding\tinam
\nstatement is Ex.  P-2.\tThe entries are practically  similar
\nto those found in Ex.  P-2 relating to
\n363<\/span>
\nPongaliamman  temple  with some slight variations.   Col.  2
\nmakes a clear distinction between ownership of the land\t and
\nenjoyment.   The owner is shown as Chowleswaraswami and\t the
\n“present”  enjoyer is shown as Chowleswaraswami’s.  stanika.
\nThe nature of the enjoyment is described in col. 2 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  said  lands\t are leased  out  for  varam
\n\t      cultivation  and I cultivate the\tsame  myself
\n\t      some times and the income (masul) therefrom is
\n\t      enjoyed  by  me and co-sharers  (Pangali)\t and
\n\t      used for Swami Viniyogam.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tmanifest  from this recital that the  land  was\t the
\nsubjectmatter  of  the grant and the  income  therefrom\t was
\nderived\t either by direct cultivation or by leasing out\t the
\nsame,  and  the said income was enjoyed by the\tarchaka\t and
\nused  for  viniyogam.\tThe point to be noted  is  that\t the
\npredecessorin-interest to the present archaka admitted\tthat
\nthe  produce from the land was utilized for the services  of
\nthe  deity.   The said admission is  inconsistent  with\t the
\nallegation that the grant was only of melvaram.\t The entries
\nin   col.  13  are  similar  to\t those\tcontained   in\t the
\ncorresponding Ex.  P-2 relating to Pongaliamman temple, and,
\nfor   reasons  already\tgiven,\tthey  do  not  support\t the
\ncontention  that  the  assessment of  Rs.  74-1-5  was\tonly
\ngranted to the deity.\n<\/p>\n
A combined reading of these two documents leads to the\tonly
\nconclusion  that both the varams were granted to the  deity.
\nJust as in the case of Pongaliamman temple so in the case of
\nChowleswaraswami  temple,  the\tsubsequent  conduct  of\t the
\narchakas  belie their assertion that only melvaram  interest
\nin the land was granted to the deity.  Exs.  D-1 of 1867, D-
\n2  of  1868,  D-3 of 1870 and D-4 of 1883 are  some  of\t the
\nmortgages  executed  by the  archakas  ,of  Chowleswaraswami
\ntemple.\t  Exs.\t D-5, D-6 and D-7 are sales.  In  all  these
\ndocuments  the\tproperty is  described\tas  Chowleswaraswami
\nmanyam.\t  If really the kudivaram belonged to the  archakas,
\nthey would not have described the land they were  alienating
\nas Chowleswaraswami manyam.  The description of the property
\nas  that  of  the  deity is consistent\twith  the  title  of
\nkudivaram also being in the deity.  Further, as in the other
\ncase, the pattas were
\n364<\/span>
\ntransferred  in the name of the deity in 1939,\tthe  contri-
\nbutions\t were paid to the Hindu Religious Endowments,  Board
\non the basis that the entire interest in the lands  belonged
\nto  the deity and that in other proceedings  the  archakas’s
\ncase  was  not that the grant to the deity was only  of\t the
\nmelvaram but the lands were service inam lands.\t Though\t the
\narchakas   dealt  with\tthe  properties\t by  mortgaging\t  or
\notherwise alienating them they never denied the title of the
\ndeity.\t For the foregoing reasons we hold that even in\t the
\ncase  of Chowleswaraswami temple the original grant made  to
\nthe deity comprised both the varams.\n<\/p>\n
In  regard to Sri Varadaraja Perumal temple, no\t appeal\t was
\nfiled  by the archakas and they allowed the judgment of\t the
\nHigh Court in regard to the title to become final.  Nothing,
\ntherefore, need be said on the question of title of the land
\nin respect of this temple.\n<\/p>\n
Coming\tto the cross-appeals filed by the  trustees  against
\nthat  part of the decree of the High Court apportioning\t the
\nproperty  of the deity between the deity and  the  archakas,
\nthe  question raised is whether the High Court, having\theld
\nthat the title to the suit property vested in the deity, had
\njurisdiction  to compel the trustees of the temples  to\t put
\nthe  archakas in possession of specified extent of  property
\ntowards their remuneration.  The High Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  these findings, it is no doubt true\tthat
\n\t      the  decree  in favour of the  plaintiffs\t for
\n\t      possession of the properties on behalf of\t the
\n\t      deity   has  to  be  upheld  subject  to\t the
\n\t      consideration set forth below.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Then it proceeded to consider whether any allocation of land
\nshould be made between the archakas and the trustees.  After
\nnoticing the relevant decisions on the subject, it  observed
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
.lm15
\n“These\tdecisions  are practically uniform  except  for\t the
\ndecisions……….  (in)  A.  S.  No.\t2  3  7\t of  1950(1)
\nand…………\t (in) Venkatadri v. Seshacharlu(2) and\thave
\nupheld the allocation
\n(1)  Brahnyya v. Rajeswarawami temple A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 580.
\n(2)  I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 46.\n<\/p>\n
365<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      of   lands  between  the\tarchakas   and\t the
\n\t      trustees, the proportion however varying\twith
\n\t      the extent of the lands and the amount of\t the
\n\t      income.\tNone  of  the  Judges  were  of\t the
\n\t      opinion  that  the  arrangement  should  be  a
\n\t      permanent\t and an unalterable one and it\tmust
\n\t      naturally be subject to revision or alteration
\n\t      according to the circumstances of the case  at
\n\t      the instance not only of the trustees but also
\n\t      at  the  instance of the archakas, if  it\t was
\n\t      found  that the allocation was working to\t the
\n\t      detriment\t of  either the archakas or  of\t the
\n\t      temple.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      It concluded:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We think, therefore, in these cases, the best
\n\t      arrangement  would  be to\t allocate  half\t the
\n\t      lands   in   each\t of  the   suits   for\t the
\n\t      remuneration  of the archakas, to\t be  divided
\n\t      equally,\thaving\tregard to the  wet  and\t dry
\n\t      extents,\tand leave the remaining half to\t the
\n\t      trustees,\t who  have to meet the cost  of\t the
\n\t      daily  worship and accumulate the\t surplus  in
\n\t      their hands as it belongs to the deity.”\n<\/p>\n
On principle, in our view, the conclusion arrived at by\t the
\nlearned\t Judges\t of the High Court  is\tunsupportable.\t The
\nsuits  were based on title and the relief asked for was\t the
\neviction  of  the archakas from the suit property  as  they,
\naccording  to  the  plaintiffs had no  title  to  remain  in
\npossession.  The archakas raised the plea that the title  of
\nthe  ,deity  was confined only to melvaram  in\tthe  plaint-
\nschedule  lands\t and that they had title to  the  kudivaram.
\nBoth the courts confirmed the title of the deity to both the
\ninterests and negatived the title of the defendant.  In\t the
\ncircumstances  the Court has no option but to  deliver\tpos-
\nsession to the plaintiffs who had established their title to
\nthe  suit properties.  In a suit for framing a scheme for  a
\ntemple a court may in an appropriate case put the archaka in
\npossession  of\ta portion of the temple\t lands\ttowards\t his
\nremuneration  for services to the temple; but these are\t not
\nsuits for framing a scheme.  That apart, there is absolutely
\nno material either in the pleadings or in the evidence to
\n366<\/span>
\nmake  any such apportionment, for the allotment of a  parti-
\ncular  share  to  the archaka would depend  upon  the  total
\nincome\tfrom the lands, the value of the  articles  required
\nfor  the  worship,  the amount\tof  reasonable\tremuneration
\nintended to be provided and other similar circumstances.  An
\nallotment   cannot  possibly  be  made\ton  the\t  basis\t  of
\nallocations made in the circumstances and facts peculiar  to
\nother  cases.\tIndeed, this Court has already\texpressed  a
\nclear  opinion\ton this aspect of the case in  Buddu  Surya-
\nnarayana’s case(1).  Therein, Das, J., said at p. 1008 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      In  a proceeding for the framing of  a  scheme
\n\t      relating to a temple it may be permissible  to
\n\t      take  into  account the claims, moral  if\t not
\n\t      legal,  of the Archakas and to make some\tpro-
\n\t      vision for protecting their rights, but  those
\n\t      considerations appear to us to be entirely out
\n\t      of  place in a suit for ejectment on proof  of
\n\t      title.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With  respect we entirely agree with the said  observations.
\nIt  follows  that  the High Court went wrong  in  making  an
\nallocation  of\tthe  lands  between  the  trustees  and\t the
\narchakas in a suit for ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the archakas made an impassioned  appeal
\nthat we should give a direction to the authorities concerned
\nto  make  an apportionment of the properties  on  the  lines
\nsuggested  by  the  High Court, having regard  to  the\tlong
\nenjoyment  of  the  temple  lands  by  the  archakas.\tLong
\nenjoyment  of  the  temple lands by the archakas  is  not  a
\npeculiar  feature of this case.\t The  authorities  concerned
\nhave  made  suitable arrangements for  remuneration  in\t the
\n,case of other temples and we have no doubt that they  would
\nmake a reasonable provision for the archakas in the  present
\ncase also for their remuneration in accordance with law.
\nIn the result, Civil Appeals Nos. 648 and 650 of 1960  filed
\nby  the\t trustees  are allowed but,  in\t the  circumstances,
\nwithout\t costs.\t Civil Appeal No. 649 of 1960 filed  by\t the
\ntrustees is also allowed without costs except as against the
\n\t      (1)   [1953] S.C.R. 1001
\n\t\t\t\t   367<\/span>
\n14th   respondent.   The  said\tappeal\tagainst\t  the\t14th
\nrespondent is withdrawn on the ground that his interest as a
\nmortgagee is not now subsisting and the said appeal  against
\nthe  14th respondent is dismissed as withdrawn but,  in\t the
\ncircumstances,\twithout costs.\tCivil Appeals Nos.  651\t and
\n652 of 1960 filed by the archakas are dismissed with  costs.
\nOne hearing tee.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 516, 1964 SCR (8) 347 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: C. PERIASWAMI GOUNDAN AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SUNDARESA IYER AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/1964 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-03T23:36:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-03T23:36:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\"},\"wordCount\":6492,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\",\"name\":\"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-03T23:36:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-03T23:36:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964","datePublished":"1964-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-03T23:36:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964"},"wordCount":6492,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964","name":"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-03T23:36:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-periaswami-goundan-and-ors-vs-sundaresa-iyer-and-ors-on-31-july-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Periaswami Goundan And Ors vs Sundaresa Iyer And Ors on 31 July, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84459\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}