# BUDDU SATYANARAYA"N'A AND OTHERS v. KONDURU VENKATAPAYYA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 1001
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLA1'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1951
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, S. R. Das
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/buddu-satyanaraya-n-a-and-others-v-konduru-venkatapayya-and-others-90
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Inam arant-Presumption of lost grant-When a,risesWhether grant is of mel waram only or land itself-Gonstrnction of
grant-Suit for ejectment ·-Rights of arch.kas,
Though a presumption of an origin in some lawful title may
in certain circumstances be made to support possessory rights long
and quietly enjoyed where no actual proof of title is forthcoming,
that presumption cannot be ma<le where there is sufficient evidence and convincing proof of the nature of tbe grant and of the
persons to whom it was made.
In the case of an inazn grant, the mere fact that the amount
shown in the Inam Register as the assessment was the same as
the amount shown in the Ina1n Statement under the heitding "in·
co1ne from the ina1n" does not lead to an inference that the
grant co1nprised only the 1nelvarani, rights and not the land
itself,
'rhough in a, proceeding for franiing a sche1ne relating to a
temple it may be permissible to take into account the claims,
mora.l tJiough not legal, of the archakas and to make some provision to protect their interest, such considera.tions are out of
place in a suit for ejectment of the archakas on proof of title,
especially when they set up an adverse title and deny the title of
the temple,
[On tbe facts their Lordships held (i) that there was clear
evidence that the inam grant in question was made by the grantor
in favour of the temple and that in the face of this definite
evidence as to the nature of the grant no presumption.of a lost
grant can he made in favour of the archakas of the temple; and
(ii) that the grant WILS of the land itself and notofmelvaram rights
only,]
CIVIL
APPELLA1'E
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 121 of 1951.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 15th
December, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras (Subba Rao <md Panchapakesa Ayyar JJ.) in
Appeal No. 474of1945 arising out of the Judgment
and Decree dated 31st July, 1946, of the Court of the
Subordinate .Judge of Teuali in Original Suit No. 24 of
1944.
130
I
1963
Feb. Z6.
I
1002
SUPHEME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1963
1~1.
C.
Setalvad,
Attorney-General for India,
(N. Subrahmanyam and K. R. Chowdhury, with him)
S
Buddu
for the appellants.
a.t.yanarayana
and Others
K. s. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar (111. Seshachalav.
pathi, with him) for the respondents.
Kondu1·u
V enkatapayya
and Othere.
1953. February 26.
The J udgmcnt of the Court
was delivered by
DAS J.~This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery
of possession of certain immovable properties measuring about 93 acres and 33 cents which are more
fully and particularly set out and described in
Schedule A to the plaint. That suit was instituted by
Konduru Venkatapayya, respondent No. 1, in his
capacity as the Executive Officer appointed by the
Government on the 15th July, 1942, in respect of
Sri Somasekharaswami Temple at Kotipalle, hamlet of
Donepudi, a temple notified on the 26th October, 1939,
under the provisions of Chapter VIA of the Madras
Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of 1927).
The suit was instituted informa pauperis. The claim
for ejectment of the defendants was founded on the
allegation that the propert.ies belonged to t.he temple,
having been given to it by an Inam grant made in
1770 A.D. by Janganna Rao, the then Zamindar of
Rachur, that the defendants 1 to 16 and their predecessors were Archakas rendering Nitya N" aivcdya
Deeparadhana services and as such were in possession
of the properties for and on behalf of the temple and
that defendants 17 to 43 were the lessees under the
Archakas and that the defendants 1 to 16 were wrongfully claiming the properties as their own and the
other defendants claimed to be in possession of portions of the properties as their lessees.
The plaintiff
instituted this suit after having given registered notice
to the defendants to make over possession of the suit
properties to the plaintiff as the Executive Officer of
the temple but the defendants were still continuing in
such possession in spite of such notice. The defendants
filed wri

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1001
BUDDU SATYANARAYA"N'A AND OTHERS
v.
KONDURU VENKATAPAYYA AND OTHERS.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS JJ.]
Inam arant-Presumption of lost grant-When a,risesWhether grant is of mel waram only or land itself-Gonstrnction of
grant-Suit for ejectment ·-Rights of arch.kas,
Though a presumption of an origin in some lawful title may
in certain circumstances be made to support possessory rights long
and quietly enjoyed where no actual proof of title is forthcoming,
that presumption cannot be ma<le where there is sufficient evidence and convincing proof of the nature of tbe grant and of the
persons to whom it was made.
In the case of an inazn grant, the mere fact that the amount
shown in the Inam Register as the assessment was the same as
the amount shown in the Ina1n Statement under the heitding "in·
co1ne from the ina1n" does not lead to an inference that the
grant co1nprised only the 1nelvarani, rights and not the land
itself,
'rhough in a, proceeding for franiing a sche1ne relating to a
temple it may be permissible to take into account the claims,
mora.l tJiough not legal, of the archakas and to make some provision to protect their interest, such considera.tions are out of
place in a suit for ejectment of the archakas on proof of title,
especially when they set up an adverse title and deny the title of
the temple,
[On tbe facts their Lordships held (i) that there was clear
evidence that the inam grant in question was made by the grantor
in favour of the temple and that in the face of this definite
evidence as to the nature of the grant no presumption.of a lost
grant can he made in favour of the archakas of the temple; and
(ii) that the grant WILS of the land itself and notofmelvaram rights
only,]
CIVIL
APPELLA1'E
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 121 of 1951.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 15th
December, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras (Subba Rao <md Panchapakesa Ayyar JJ.) in
Appeal No. 474of1945 arising out of the Judgment
and Decree dated 31st July, 1946, of the Court of the
Subordinate .Judge of Teuali in Original Suit No. 24 of
1944.
130
I
1963
Feb. Z6.
I
1002
SUPHEME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1963
1~1.
C.
Setalvad,
Attorney-General for India,
(N. Subrahmanyam and K. R. Chowdhury, with him)
S
Buddu
for the appellants.
a.t.yanarayana
and Others
K. s. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar (111. Seshachalav.
pathi, with him) for the respondents.
Kondu1·u
V enkatapayya
and Othere.
1953. February 26.
The J udgmcnt of the Court
was delivered by
DAS J.~This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery
of possession of certain immovable properties measuring about 93 acres and 33 cents which are more
fully and particularly set out and described in
Schedule A to the plaint. That suit was instituted by
Konduru Venkatapayya, respondent No. 1, in his
capacity as the Executive Officer appointed by the
Government on the 15th July, 1942, in respect of
Sri Somasekharaswami Temple at Kotipalle, hamlet of
Donepudi, a temple notified on the 26th October, 1939,
under the provisions of Chapter VIA of the Madras
Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of 1927).
The suit was instituted informa pauperis. The claim
for ejectment of the defendants was founded on the
allegation that the propert.ies belonged to t.he temple,
having been given to it by an Inam grant made in
1770 A.D. by Janganna Rao, the then Zamindar of
Rachur, that the defendants 1 to 16 and their predecessors were Archakas rendering Nitya N" aivcdya
Deeparadhana services and as such were in possession
of the properties for and on behalf of the temple and
that defendants 17 to 43 were the lessees under the
Archakas and that the defendants 1 to 16 were wrongfully claiming the properties as their own and the
other defendants claimed to be in possession of portions of the properties as their lessees.
The plaintiff
instituted this suit after having given registered notice
to the defendants to make over possession of the suit
properties to the plaintiff as the Executive Officer of
the temple but the defendants were still continuing in
such possession in spite of such notice. The defendants
filed written statements raising various contentions
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1003
and issues to which it is not necessary now to
refer. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment
dated the 31st July, 1945, decreed the plaintiff's suit.
Some of the defendants preferred an appeal to the
High Court but the High Court dismissed the same.
Those defendants obtained leave of the High Court to
appeal to the Federal Court and that appeal has now
come up for hearing before us.
The only two points which were raised before us, as
before the High Court, are (1) whether the Inam grant
was made in favour of the temple or whether the grant
was made in favour of the Archakas burdened with the
duties of service, and (2) what right did the grant
confer on the grantee~whether it was a grant of the
land itself or only of the melvarwn interest in the
properties.
Re 1.--lt is urged by the learned Attorney-General
that as the defendants and their predecessors have
been in possession of the properties from ancient times
it should be presumed that their possession originated
in some lawful title conferred on them. In short, tho
contention, founded on several judicial decisions, is
that the principle of a lost grant should be applied in
this case in favour of the Archakas who have been in
quiet possession for over a century and a half. There
is no doubt, on the authorities, that a presumption of
an origin in some lawful title may in certain circumstances be made to support possessory rights long and
quietly enjoyed where no actuo,l proof of title is forthcoming but it is equally well established that that presumption cannot be made where there is sufficient
evidence and convincing proof of the nature of the
grant and the persons to whom it was made. It is true
that the original grant is not forthcoming but turning
to the ·evidence we find two documents which appear
to us to be decisive on the question of title. The first
one is Exhibit P ;3, a copy of the relevant entries in
the Inam Register of 1860. This Inam Register was
prepared after enquiries made by the Inam Deputy
Collector and the statements furnished at that time by
the ~hen Archakas were taken into consideration for
f
Buddu
Satyanarayana
and Others
v.
Konduru
V enkatapayya
and OtherB.
DaaJ.
•
191!3
Buddu
Satyanarayana
and Others
v.
Konduru
V enkatapayya
arid Others.
Da•J.
1004.
SUPREME COURT :R:El>ORTS
[1953
preparing the register. The copy of the statement filed
by the then Archakas before the lnam Deputy Collector was exhibited in this case as Exhibit D /3.
ln the
Inam Register (Ex. P/3) under the several columns
grouped under the general heading " Class extent and
value of Inam" this Inam is classified in column 2 as
Devadayam. In column 3 are set out the survey
numbers together with the word ' Dry' indicating the
nature of the land comprised within the survey numbers. The areas are set out in column 5. The heading
of column 7 is " where no survev has been made and
no assessment fixed by Goverm~ent, the cess paid by
the ryot to the Inamtlar, or the a,verage assessment of
similar Govemment land should be entered in
column (7) ". Under this heading are set out the
amounts of rcsvccti ve assessments against the three
survey numbers totalling Rs. 198-13-9. \Ve then pass
on the next group of columns under the general heading " Description, tenure and documents in support of
the Inam ". Under column 8 'description oflnam' is
entered the remark "For the support of a Pagoda.
Now kept up". The entry in column 9 shows that the
Inam was free of tax, i.e., sarvadumbala. Under
column 10 headed "Hereditary, unconditional for life
only or for two or more lives" is mentioned ' Permanent '. The name of the grantor as stated in column 11
is J anganna Rao and the year of grant is fasli 1179,
A.D. 1770. In column 13 the name of the temple is
set out as the original grantee. The name of the temple
and the location of the temple a.re also set out under
columns 16 and 17. Turning ;:iow to the statement
Ex. D /3 ca used to be written and filed by the then
Archakas during the Inam Inquiry held in 1859-60
Sree Somasekharaswa.mi V am is given as the name of
the Inamdar and the present enjoyer. The name.of the
temple is also set out under columns 3,5,G and 12.
Under the heading "Income derived from the Inamwhether it is sarvadumbala or jodi. Ifjodi the amount"
in column 13 is stated " sari;adu1nbala Inam. Cist
according to the rate prevailing in the neighbouring
fields -Rs. 2G6-3-I." This statement (Ex. D /3) bears
•
S.C.R.
strf>REME COlJR'r REPOR'l'S
i005
the signature of the Karnams and the witnesses. It
will be noticed that neither in the Inam Register
Ex. P /3 nor in the statement Ex. D /3 is there any
m~oo~~k~~~~~w~~m~~
matter of that, having any the least interest, personal
or otherwise, in the subject-matter of the Inam grant.
The two exhibits quite clearly indicate that the Inam
grant was made in favour of the temple by the grantor
and that in the face of this definite evidence and proof
of the nature of the grant, no presumption of a lost
grant can be made in favour of the Archakas.
\Ve,
therefore, in agreement with the High Court, hold that
the deity w11s the grantee and the first question raised
before us must be answered against the appellants.
Re 2.--The learned Attorney-General next contends
that, assuming that the Inam want was made in favom
of the temple, it was only a grant of melvararn
interest and that the Archakas who have the kudivarmn rights cannot be ejected. He relies strongly on
an unreported judgment of the Madras High Co mt in
Appeal No. 213 of 1942 (The Board of Comrniss·ioners
for the Hindu Religious Endowments, 1vladras v.
Parasaram Veeraraghavacharyulii and others) where it
was held:-
"The records of the lnam settlement really contain
only one clear indication as to the precise extent of
this grant. The statement at the Inam Inquiry,
Exhibit V, upon which the decision of the Inam Commissioner was presumably based contains a column
headed " Income realised from the Inam sarva·
du.rnbala " and in that column we find the entry
"Hs. H 8arvadurnbala".
On its face this entry seems
to show that the income of the Inam was Hs. 14 free
from all charges. \Ve find, however, from the Inam
Register, Exhibit I\', that the assessment of the Inam
on the basis of the enjoyment of 16·97 acres is also
Rs. 14.
This seems to inclimite that the extent of the
Inam was the amount of the assessment.
*
*
*
*
*
It seems, therefore, that the decision must rest on
the rec!tal in Exhibit V that the income of the Inam
I
1953
Buddu
Satyanarayana
and Others
v.
Konduru
Venkatapayya
and Other3.
DaaJ.
I
1953
Buddu
8att;anarayar1.(/
anr'l Other8
v.
J\.onduru
V cn~·atapay yn
aftd Others.
J)as J.
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
consists of Rs. 14, read along with the recital in
Exhibit IV that the assessment on the fand also comes
to Rs. 14.
On these materials we confirm the findings
of the learned District Judge, although we do not
accept his reasoning, and hold that the grant is a grant
of melvaram only."
The facts of that case appear to us to be different
from those in the present case. The Archakas in that
case were found to have the kudivaram rights from before the lnam grant was made. In the copies of the
Inam Register and Inam Statement filed in that case
the Archakas were shown as the grantees and the
present enjoyers of the Inam grant and the amount
shown under the heading in column 2 of the Inam
register ·as the assessment was the same as the amount
shown under column 3 of the Inam Statement under
the heading "Income derived from Inam". In the
case before us the Arohakas are nowhere mentioned
in either Exhibit P /3 or in Exhibit D /3, there is no
evidence that they had any title to kudivaram rights
and finally the amount of assessment shown under
column 7 of the Inam register, Exhibit P /3, is
Rs. 198-13-9, whereas the amount shown as income
derived from the Inam as shown in column 13 of the
Inam Statement, Exhibit D /3, is Rs. 266-3-1.
Apart
from these points of distinction the decision relied on
by the learned Attorney-General appears to us to be
of doubtful authority.
As will appear from the
passages quoted above, the decision rested mainly, if
not entirely, on the fact that the amount of assessment
and the amount of income were the same and the conclusion was drawn that the Inam grant comprised
only of the revenue assessment, i.e., of melvaram
rights.
We are unable to follow the reasoning.
Whether the Inam comprised the land itself, that is to
say, both melvaram and kudivaram rights or only the
melvaram rights, the entries had to be made in the
Inam Register in the same form and even in the case
of the grant of the land itself comprising both the
rights the amount of assessment had to be , set out
under column 7 of the Inam Register for it is not
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1007
suggested that a different form had to be used where
the grant comprised both the rights. It follows, therefore, that no inference that the Inam grant comprised
only melvaram rights can be inferred from the fact that
under column 7 only the amount of assessment is set
out, and, therefore, the reasoning on which the decision relied on by the learned Attorney-General was
founded cannot be supported as correct. Indeed, that
decision has been dissented from by another Bench of
the Madras High Court in Yelmnanchili Venkatadri &
another v. Vedantam Seshacharyulu and others (1). In
the present case the High Court was, in our opinion,
clearly right in preferring the last mentioned decision
to the unreported decision mentioned above. Having
regard to the different entries under the different
columns in Exhibit P/3 and Exhibit D /3 tpere is no
escape from the position that this Inam grant in
favour of the temple comprised both the interests in
the land.
An argument was sought to be raised by the learned
Attorney-General that the grantor Janganna Rao was
only the Collector of the revenue and as such could
not grant more than what he had got. Reference was
made to the Kistna District Manual by Gordon
Mackenzie but it appeared that the person therein
mentioned was not the same grantor as we are concerned with in this case and the point was not pursued
and nothing further need be said about it.
:Finally, the learned Attorney-General submits that
these Archakas who were rendering services faithfully
from generation to generation from ancient times
should not, in equity, be ejected from the entire
111nds and that they should be allowed to remain in
possession of the lands and be permitted to appropriate to themselves the expenses of the services and
a reasonable remuneration and the rest of the income
should be made over to the temple as its property.
Reference was made to two unreported deoisions of
the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 218 of 194()
(I) A.LR, 1948 :Mad. 72,
I
1953
Buddu
Satyanarayana
and Others
v.
/{onduru
l' enkatapayya
. and Others.
DasJ.
I
1903
Buddu
Sat,yanorayana
and Othera
v.
Konduru
Venkatapayya
and Othera.
Das_ J,
1008
SUPREME COL"RT REPORTS
[1953]
Dandibhotla K uturnba Sastrulu v. Kontharapu Venkatalingam, and in Appeal No. 709 of 1944; Buddu Satyanarayana v. Dasari Butchayya, Executive O.fficer of the
Temple of Sri: 111alleswaraswami Varu,, China Pulivaram. In a proceeding for the framing of a scheme
relating to a temple it may be permissible to take into
account tho claims, moral if not legal, of the Archakas
and to make some provision for protecting their rights,
but those considerations appear to us to be entirely
out of place in a suit for ejectment on proof of title.
If the two decisions lay down, as it is contended they
do, that the principles which may have a bearing on a
proceeding for framing of a scheme or for enforcing
the scheme that is framed may be applied to a case of
the kind we have now before us it will be difficult for
us to uphold them either on authority or on principle.
Further what is the conduct of the Archakas defendants appearing on the record of this case ? Although
they are Archakas they actually asserted an adverse
right in the face of the honest admission of their
predecessors-in-title, made in the Inam statement
Exhibit D-3. Such conduct cannot but be regarded
as disentitling them from any claim founded on equity.
The explanation put forward for the first time in paragraph 7 of their present statement of case filed in this
Court explaining t.he absence of a claim to the property by their predecessors at the time of the · Inam
Inquiry namely, respect for the deity enjoined by
Agama Shastra is not at all convincing. Further, the
giving of such equitable relief must depend on questions of fact, namely, the income of the property,
t.he reasonable expenses and remuneration for the
services, the amounts appropriated by them all this
time and so forth which have not been investigated
into in this case, bEcause, no doubt, this question of
equitable relief has been put forward as a last resort
after having lost their battle.
vVe do not think in
the circumstances ::if the cttse any indulgence should
be shown to the Archalrns cwen if it were permissible
for the Court in a suit of this description to give such
reli1Jf,
· '
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1009
The result, therefore, is that this appeal must fail
and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for appellant: S. Subramaniam.
Agent for respondent : M.S.K. Aiyangar.
NAMDEO LOKMAN LODHI
v.
NARMADABAI AND OTHERS
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS JJ.]
Lease-Condit.ion that the lessee's rights shall terminate if rent is
not paid--Notice in writing by lessor to terrninate lease-Whether
necessary-S!!it for ejectment withotlt notice-MaintainabilityTransfer of Property Act (IV of 1882 as amended in 1929), s.
111( g)-Whether based on justice, equity and good conscience-Appli.
cability to lease deeds executed before 1st April, 1930.
The provision as to notice in writing of the lessor's intention to
determine the lease, containei1 in section l ll(g) of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, as amended in 1929, is not based on any
princjple of justice, equity or good con;cience and is not applicable
to leases executed prior to 1st April, 1930.
Where a lease deed executed before the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, came into force, provided that the lessee's rights should
come to an end on default of payment of rent, and, as rent was
not duly paid, the lessor instituted a suit for ejectment of the
lessee without giving him a notice in writing of his (the lessor's)
intention to determine the lease:
Held, that the suit was maintainable,
Umar Pulavar v.
Dawood
Rowther (A.LR. 194 7 :VIa<l. 68),
Bralvmayya v. Sundaramma (A.LR. 48 }fad. 275), Tatya Savla
S11drik v. Yeshwanta Kondiba Mulay (52 Born. hR. 909) disapproved.
Toleman v. Portbury (L.R. 6 Q.13. 245), Prakash Chandra
Das v. Rajendra Nath Basu (I.L.R. 58 Cal. 1359), Rama Ai11angar
v. Gumswami Chetty (35 l'vl.L.J. 129), Venkatachari v. Ranga·
swami Aiyar(36 llf.L.J. 532) and Krishna Shetti v. Gilbert Pinto
(I.L.R. 42 !Yfad. 654) relied on.
Venkatarama Aiyar v. Ponnuswamy Padayachi IA.LR. 1935 Mad; 918), Aditya Prasad v. Ram
Ratanlal (57L-A. 173), Muhammad Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bi/Ji. (59
I.A. 236), Roberts v. Davey (110 E.R. 606) distinguished.
Crvn. A1'PELLA'l'E JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 154 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and
Decree dated the 23rd June, 1949, of the High
13!
I
1953
Bud Wit
Satyanarayana
and Others
v.
Konduru
Venkatapayya
and Other«~.
1953
Feb. 27.