T.R.Srinivasa Iyengar @ Ramasamy ... vs Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11018 Mad

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 23.08.2023

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
                                                    AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                                  S.T.A.No.3 of 2004

                     1.T.R.Srinivasa Iyengar @ Ramasamy Iyengar
                     2.A.Gopalan @ Annasamy Iyengar
                     3.Thulasi Ammal
                     4.S.Narasinga Bhattar @ Srinivasa Bhattar
                     5.D.Srinivasa Bhattar @ Devaraja Bhattar
                       R.Krishna Bhattar (died)
                     6.K.Sampathkumar @ Krishna Bhattar.
                     7.Desikan @ Srinivasan
                     8.S.T.Rengarajan @ S.Thiruvengadasamy
                     9.Renganayaki
                     10.Amirthavalli
                     11.Srinivasan
                     12.A.Saroja
                     13.R.Murali Bhattar
                     14.Madhavan
                     15.Govindasamy



                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     16.T.Srinivasan
                     17.Janaki Ammal
                     18.S.Rengarajan
                     19.R.Sampathkumar
                     20.T.Srinivasan
                     21.Srinivasa Iyengar
                     22.S.Jayalakshmi                                   ...Appellants

                     (CT accepted vide order dated 19.06.2003 made in STP.No.2/02.)

                                                       -Vs.-


                     Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam (Idol),
                     Rep. through his Executive Officer,
                     Srirangam, Trichy.                                 ...Respondents

PRAYER:- Special Tribunal Appeal filed under Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 r/w Rule 28 of the Rules, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 made in CMA No.18 of 1981 on the file of the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Tiruchirapalli, reversing the order of the settlement Tahsildar III (SE) Tiruchirapalli, dated 29.08.1969 and made in Petition No.275/69.

                                         For Appellants        :Mr.P.Thiagarajan
                                         For Respondent        :Mr.P.Vinoth
                                                               for Mr.M.Saravanan



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                     JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

Both Mr.P.Thiagarajan, learned Counsel for the appellants and

Mr.P.Vinoth, learned Counsel for the sole respondent would concur on

the position that this appeal could be decided in the light of decision of

this Court in a batch of STAs (STA.Nos.20 to 24 of 2001 and batch)

disposed on 03.03.2023 by Division Bench of this Court in Kandasamy

@ Muthu Mudaliar and others vs Arulmighu Sri Ranganathar Swamy

represented by Executive Officer and others.

2.As in the present matter, those STAs had also been filed

challenging an order passed by the Inam Estate Abolition Tribunal

Trichy, in terms of Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition

and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 ('Act').

3.The subject matter of the suit related to land conveyed under

Inam Title Deed 1027, that had been granted as Devadayam for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis support of the Pagoda for Sri Ranganathaswamy at Srirangam. The land

comprises Vallithirumutham Village in Trichy District, now known as

Srirangam. It comprised a minor inam granted to the Pagoda of Sri

Rangathaswamy, Srirangam in T.D.No.1207 and had been notified under

Section 1(4) of Act 30 of 1963 ('land'/'land in question')

4.Enquiry was commenced suo motu by the Assistant

Settlement Officer who took the stand that on and from 15.02.1965,

which is date of enforcement of Act 30 of 1963, those lands vested in the

Government free, from all encumbrances. The land was classified into

three different heads, Part-I, land with building, Part-II, vacant land and

Part-III, land already vested with Government and being used for public

utility, as lanes, grounds, etc. The totality of the lands admeasured 390

acres.

5.The respondent contended that there was a presumption

under Section 44 of the Act in favour of the Sri Ranganathaswamy

Devasthanam ('Temple'). The land of the Temple comprises both

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Melwaram and Kudiwaram and the Temple would have full right in

respect of the lands under T.D.1027. Such right had been recognised by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Lakshmi Dasi and others vs

Bamamali Sen and others [AIR 1953 SC 33].

6.The plea of the Devasthanam was rejected by the Settlement

Tahsildar, which then filed appeals before the Tribunal, 9 ½ years, from

the date of order of the Settlement Tahsildar. The Tribunal framed issues

(i)on the bar of limitation as well as on the merits as to whether (ii)the

Devasthanam was entitled for patta in respect of the land covered under

T.D.1027 comprising agricultural lands and road and (iii) whether the

Devasthanam was entitled to Melwaram patta in respect of land upon

which building has been constructed.

7.The appeals were held to be within time following the

judgment in Pandurangan Chetti and another vs The Govt. of Tamil

Nadu, represented by the Collector of N.Arcot and another [1978 (2)

MLJ 388]. On merits, the contention of the Devesthanam was accepted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis holding that it held Iruwaram over the land. For this purpose, reliance

was placed on the decision in Kali Varadaraja Perumal Koil, Pollachi,

vs K.S.J.Raju Chettiar [1978 (91) LW 142].

8.The Tribunal also accepted the contention of the

Devasthanam that it held ryotwari rights over the properties comprising

building with land, following the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in K.S.Thirugnanasambandam Chettiar (dead) by L.Rs.

And others vs The Settlement Tahsildar, Coimbatore and others [1996 (1)

L.W. 19 (SC). The building owners were entitled to patta for the

building alone.

9.Special Tribunal Appeals had been filed by the parties

aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and was decided in favour of

the Devasthanam by order of the Court dated 03.03.2023.

10.In those matters, the Court has categorically held at para 45

as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis “45.Thus, it is now been well settled by pronouncement of judicial orders that the party who claims vesting of property under Section 13 of the Act has to establish that he is the owner of the building as well as the site in which the building stands. The land if owned by a religious institution and a building stands upon that land does not vest the site upon which the building stands inclusive of the land appurtenant to the building. The inamdar continued to be in constructive possession of the site, even after the notified date and the inamdar will be entitled to recover possession from the vacant site from his tenant. This legal position been settled in catena of judgments which are referred in R.Manicka Naickar case cited supra followed by Ramae Gounder case cited supra. Therefore, looking at any angle, either the point of limitation or the nature of the grant or the applicability of Section 13 of the Act in respect of the buildings found in Schedule-I of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, this Court finds that the existing right of the Temple given under the grant cannot be taken away by virtue of the provisions of the Act 30 of 1963. under Section 44 of the Act, the pre-existing right vested with the Temple is not only for Kudiwaram, but both the Melwaram and Kudiwaram. Therefore, the Temple is entitled for patta absolutely for the land enumerated under second schedule and patta for the site for the land enumerated under First schedule whereupon building has been constructed. It is for the person who claim his right over the building to establish whether they put up the building with the consent of the land owner, namely the Temple or not. These are the issues based on the facts to be decided by a competent Civil Court. As far as the present appeals are concerned, the order of the Tribunal is perfectly valid. There is no legal infirmity on facts or law. The absolute right vested with the Temple cannot be diverted without taking note of the fact that prior to the advent of the Act 30 of 1963, Melwaram and Kudiwaram right of the Temple been recognised and honoured.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11.Learned counsel before us would confirm that the status of

the present appellants are identical to that of the appellants in the other

STAs and that decision dated 03.03.2023 would apply on all fours to the

present case as well.

12.In light of the aforesaid discussion, these appeals are

dismissed and the order of the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal (Principal

Sub Judge, Trichy) dated 03.11.1998 in C.M.A.No.18 of 1981 is

confirmed. No costs.

                                                                 [A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
                     NCC      :Yes/No                                   23.08.2023
                     Index    :Yes/No
                     Internet :Yes/No
                     cmr





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     To:

1.The Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Tiruchirapalli.

2.The Settlement Tahsildar III (SE) Tiruchirapalli.

3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

cmr

S.T.A.No.3 of 2004

23.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis