Temple inam resumption turns on service grants, pre-existing alienation, and rejection of adverse possession.

Temple inams granted to hereditary office-holders as remuneration for religious services were treated as grants of both melwaram and kudiwaram, not merely melwaram, on the basis of title deeds, inam register entries, and contemporaneous statements. The inams fell within section 44-B because they were service inams attached to temple duties, not merely personal inams burdened with service. Section 44-B(2) was construed to permit resumption where the relevant alienation or lease pre-dated the provision, and the right of resumption was not defeated by adverse possession because the occupiers held as lessees under the inamdars, not adversely.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the inams were grants of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram, and not merely melwaram; (ii) whether the inams were personal inams burdened with service and therefore outside the scope of section 44-B; (iii) whether section 44-B(2) authorised resumption of the inams where the alienation or lease pre-dated the section and whether the right of resumption was lost by adverse possession.

Issue (i): whether the inams were grants of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram, and not merely melwaram.

Analysis: The title deeds, inam fair register entries, and the contemporaneous statements of the inamdars showed that the lands were granted as remuneration for temple services and were enjoyed by the office-holders as holders of the inams. The evidence did not support the view that the grants were confined to melwaram alone. The very low assessment and the long enjoyment by the inamdars supported the inference that the grants carried both rights.

Conclusion: The inams comprised both the melwaram and the kudiwaram.

Issue (ii): whether the inams were personal inams burdened with service and therefore outside the scope of section 44-B.

Analysis: A distinction exists between land granted merely subject to a condition of service and land granted to an office-holder as remuneration for services connected with a temple. Section 44-B does not apply to the former, but it does apply to inams granted to office-holders as remuneration for temple services, as well as to grants made directly to the institution. On the facts, the inams were granted to hereditary office-holders for rendering temple services and were not personal inams.

Conclusion: The inams were within the purview of section 44-B and were resumable.

Issue (iii): whether section 44-B(2) authorised resumption of the inams where the alienation or lease pre-dated the section and whether the right of resumption was lost by adverse possession.

Analysis: Section 44-B(2) was held to operate prospectively in its application but to draw the necessary factual trigger from past as well as future alienations, failures, or cessation of the relevant service. The words used in the provision were construed as covering prior alienations and prior breaches as grounds for future resumption. The record showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessor held under a cowle lease or equivalent alienatory arrangement, and the contention that the lease was only from year to year was rejected. Since the possession was that of lessees under the inamdars, it was not adverse either to the inamdars or to the Government, and no prescriptive title arose.

Conclusion: Section 44-B(2) authorised resumption notwithstanding the earlier alienation or lease, and the plea of adverse possession failed.

Final Conclusion: The resumption of the inams was valid, and the Government was entitled to recover both the melwaram and the kudiwaram rights.

Ratio Decidendi: A temple inam granted to hereditary office-holders as remuneration for religious services is resumable under section 44-B when the statutory grounds exist, and a pre-existing alienation or lease can furnish the basis for resumption without rendering the provision retrospective in the invalid sense; possession by lessees under the grant is not adverse to the resuming authority.

---