TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the temple and instead of receiving the price of the oil would enjoy the income of the lands. The arrangement was reduced into writing. The first defendant and his predecessors have been in possession of the lands under this arrangement. The arrangement did not amount to an alienation; it gave only a license to receive the income and appropriate it towards the price of the oil. Even if the arrangement amounted to a lease, the plaintiff has a right to put an end to it and to recover the lands. The arrangement was put an end to by notices dated December 6, 1948 and August 31, 1949 issued by the plaintiff s advocate to the first defendant. The second defendant is a lessee of the suit lands under the first defendant. The defence is as follows : The plaintiff is not the trustee of the deity and has no right to sue on its behalf. There was no arrangement a,, alleged in the plaint. The first defendant is entitled to the suit lands subject only to the burden of supplying one-fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple out of its income. In 1851, there was an arrangement between Peda Narasimhulu, the great grandfather of the first defendant and Ponnuri Anandu, the then Archaka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his successors-ininterest acquired title to the lands by adverse possession subject to the burden of supplying one-fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the deity ? In support of their respective cases, both parties rely on documentary evidence. The documents filed by the plaintiff disclose that in all public records of the village of Cherukuvada, the deity is shown as the inamdar of the suit lands. The Inam Fair Register of Cherukuvada village (Ex. A-4) shows that since fasli 1203 corresponding to 1795 one Subnivas Raghoji Pantulu was the inamdar and in 1835, he sold the suit lands to one Murari Venkatarao, who, in his turn, sold the lands in 1851 to Penugonda Sri Janardhana Swami Veru for ₹ 120. By an order of the Inam Commissioner dated October 27, 1859, the title of the deity as inamdar of the suit lands was confirmed and title deed No. 469 was issued to the deity. In the Re-settlement Register of the village prepared in 1932 (Ex. A-6) also, the deity is shown as the inamdar. In the Inam B Register for the village for fasli 1342 corresponding to 1934, the suit lands are described as Devadavam, the deity shown as the inamdar and the occupation is shown as religio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged that the lands were granted to his great grandfather, Peda Narasimhulu, by Ponnuri Anandu under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, subject to the condition of supplying one-fourth seer of oil every day to the deity, and under the terms of the Sanad, the lands passed to Peda Narasimhulu and the deity is entitled to get only the oil and to no ether right. But soon thereafter on notice to Nuli Subba Rao, the Board framed the scheme dated October 26, 1931 declaring the lands to be the properties of the temple. The documents produced by the defendants do not displace the entries in the Inam Fair Register, the Inam B Register and the Resurvey and Re-settlement Register, which show that the suit lands are Devadayam, the deity is the registered inamdar and the pattas were issued to the deity. We are satisfied that the deity is the owner of the lands. We reject the claim of the defendants that in 1851 either Peda Narasimhulu or Ponnuri Anandu was the owner. We also reject the claim of the defendants that by the Sanad dated November 10, 1,851, the lands were conveyed to Peda Narasimhulu subject to the burden of supplying oil for evening lighting purposes. Had the properties been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presume a breach of duty on his part. See Maharanee Shibissouree Debia v. Mothooranath Acharjoo(1929) L.R. 49 I.A. 54), Naini Pillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan Chettiar([1953] S.C.R. 930). But the disability of the manager to grant a permanent lease at a fixed rent is not absolute; he may grant such a lease for legal necessity. If by the production of the original grant or by other cogent evidence the tenant establishes the grant of a permanent by him and the validity of the lease comes in question after a long lapse of time when direct evidence of the circumstances under which the grant was made is no longer available, the Court will make every presumption in favour of its validity and may assume that the grant was made for necessity, see Bawa Sitaram v. Kasturbbhai Manibhai(1923) L.R. 51 I.A., 83, 96-98). This case was followed in Muhammad Mazaffar-Al-Musavi v. Jabeda Khatun (1930) I.L.R. 57 Cal. 1293 P.C), where similar principles were applied to the case of a Muslim religious endowment. Now, consider the facts of the present case. defendants proved that Peda. Narasimhulu and his successors-ininterest for four generations have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d ample power in the course of management to grant a lease from year to year. The lease from year to year granted by Ponnuri Anandu in 1851 was, therefore, binding on the temple. This lease did not terminate with the expiry of the office of Ponnuri Anandu or the succeeding managers. It continued of its own force until it was terminated by notice in 1949. The possession of the tenants during the continuance of this lease was not adverse to the temple. The defendants, however, contend that the possession of Nuli Subba Rao became adverse as from October 25, 1929 when by a notice (Ex. A-9) of that date he asserted a hostitle title. This notice was addressed to the President, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The object of the notice was to deny the liability of Subba Rao to pay any contribution to the Board in respect of the temple. Incidentally, Subba Rao claimed title to the suit lands under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, subject only to the burden of supplying gingili oil to the temple daily. This claim was based on the Sanad and ultimately it was a question of construction of the Sanad whether it granted the right claimed by Subba Rao. We have already held that under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the owner on the basis of the lessee s claim as a permanent tenant will not prevent the acquisition of such a right by the, lessee. As we did not hear any argument on that point, we do not also decide whether this passage lays down the correct law. This passage must be read with the following observation of the Patna High Court in the same case : If once a tenancy of some kind comes into existence either under an express lease or under a lease implied by law, the tenant cannot convert his tenancy into a permanent one by doing any act adverse to the landlord. In the instant case, on October 25, 1929, Nuli Subba Rao was a tenant and by an adverse notice during the continuance of his tenancy he could not acquire absolute title to the suit lands, nor could he convert his tenancy into a permanent one. Moreover, it is not shown that since 1929 Nuli Subba Rao held the suit lands under a notorious claim of either an absolute title or a permanent tenancy, or that he supplied oil to the temple on the basis of such a claim. It follows that during the period from 1851 to 1949 the possession of Peda Narasimhulu and his successors-ininterest was not adverse to the deity. Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
