TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the inam comprised only the melwaram or included both melwaram and kudiwaram; (ii) whether the grant was a personal inam or a service inam connected with the temple and liable to resumption on alienation; (iii) whether section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 was beyond legislative competence or otherwise invalid, and whether adverse possession barred resumption.
Issue (i): Whether the inam comprised only the melwaram or included both melwaram and kudiwaram.
Analysis: The available and admissible records, including the village accounts and Inam Fair Register, pointed to a grant recorded as devadayam or poruppu manyam for temple service. The materials showed that the inamdars claimed only revenue rights, while the documents did not establish any grant of the soil or kudiwaram. The rejected copies of leases could not be relied upon, and the remaining evidence supported only a grant of melwaram.
Conclusion: The inam comprised only the melwaram and not the kudiwaram, against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the grant was a personal inam or a service inam connected with the temple and liable to resumption on alienation.
Analysis: The designation of the lands as devadayam, the entries in the Inam Fair Register, and the statements of enjoyment and service showed that the lands were held for archaka service of the temple and not as a merely personal grant to the grantees. A grant attached to temple service and alienated contrary to its purpose was resumable under the governing revenue and religious endowment framework.
Conclusion: The grant was a service inam connected with the temple and was liable to resumption on alienation, against the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 was beyond legislative competence or otherwise invalid, and whether adverse possession barred resumption.
Analysis: The provincial legislature had competence over land tenures, land revenue, and religious endowments, which was sufficient to enact the provision. The validation of title deeds did not create an immunity from resumption, and the argument based on forfeiture, constitutional deprivation, and prescription was rejected. The plea of adverse possession also failed because no limitation barred Government action to resume the melwaram in the circumstances found.
Conclusion: Section 44-B was valid and the plea of adverse possession failed, against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the resumption proceedings failed on every substantial ground, and the orders upholding resumption were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A temple-related inam evidenced as devadayam or poruppu manyam and held for archaka service is resumable on alienation under a validly enacted statute, and the validation of title deeds does not create an immunity from such resumption.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
