TMI Blog1927 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... father, the plaintiff succeeded to the hereditary office, that as archaka of the temple he is entitled to hold the lands free from any encumbrance, and that his adoptive father purporting to act for himself and as guardian of the plaintiff executed the Khanda Bhogiam deed, dated the 21st of February, 1913, whereby the 1st defendant was put in possession of the properties for a term of 30 years in consideration of a sum of Rs. 8,225 alleged to have been paid to the father. The plaintiff also states that there was no consideration for the deed, that the debts are not true and binding on him, that the deed is further invalid as having been taken from the plaintiff's father who was an old and orthodox person of weak mind, ignorant of worldl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral dealings with this property by way of Ijar or lease. Ex. I is the Khanda Bhogiam deed which is impeached. It is dated the 21st February, 1913. Its genuineness is not disputed, It recites that the amount due by the plaintiff's father was Rs. 8,225 and that he was unable to pay the amount and has no other income except the income got from the village described in the schedule, possession was delivered of the Inam village for a period of 30 years from fasli 1323 to fasli 1353. This document refers to a previous document of the 12th of April, 1910. As regards the enjoyment and payment of rent the deed runs as follows: Therefore you shall enjoy the said village from this time forwards and you yourself shall discharge the above-mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lessee. 4. The first question is whether this document is a lease or mortgage. Having regard to the terms of the document, i think it is a lease. It satisfies all the requirements of a lease as defined in the Transfer of Property Act. A premium is taken, which premium is to be worked off by the enjoyment of the produce for 30 years and a portion of the produce is to be given to the executants of the document. It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between a mortgage with possession and a lease where a premium is recovered by the lessor, but considering the documents as a whole I think it is a lease. 5. In Nidha Sah v. Murli Dhar (1902) LR 30 IA 54 : ILR 25 All 115 there was a document which was said to be a mortgage with posse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is concerned, there can be no doubt that the consideration as set out in the document was due and payable and as regards the plea of undue influence it has not been made out. it is not seriously disputed and argued before us in appeal that the document is invalid for any other reason but the inalienability of the land purported to be dealt with by the document Ex. I, as it was land granted for temple service. The only question therefore is whether that deed which is in my opinion a lease is invalid. 7. It has now been settled by this Court that alienation of temple service lands by sale, gift or mortgage, are invalid. 1 need only refer to the decision of the Full Bench in Anjarneyulu v. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd. ILR (1922) M 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ambaran v. Raman Nayar ILR (1882) M 89 there was a kanom for 96 years and Innes and Muttuswami Aiyar, JJ., held that the kanom was invalid. The learned Judges observed: There seems to be no real distinction between the mischief of such a transfer in perpetuity and a transfer for the long period of 96 years. 11. In Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemath Devasikamony Pandara Sannadhi ILR (1917) 40 M 709 : 1917 33 MLJ 1 their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that there was no difference in principle between the grant of a lease in perpetuity of debottar lands at a fixed rent and an absolute alienation in perpetuity of the same kind of land in consideration of a premium and set aside a permanent lease at a fixed rent on payment of a premium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terfere with the due performance of the duties attached to the office. 16. Having regard to the terms of the lease deed in question I think it is not absolutely void But that it is only voidable at the option of the plaintiff. The holder of the lands attached to an office has by the very nature of his tenure no power to lease the property so as to enure beyond his life-time and the fact that the office is hereditary makes no difference. 17. The lease in my opinion being voidable, the next question is whether the plaintiff on succeeding to the office elected to avoid it. On this point there can be little doubt that the plaintiff, after he attained majority, not only received rent but also filed a suit to recover the rent reserved. I ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
