Supreme Court upholds inam resumption under Hindu Endowments Act, rejects adverse possession claim.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings that the inam comprised only the Melwaram, was granted for temple service, and was liable to resumption under Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. The Court upheld the validity of Section 44-B and rejected the claim of adverse possession by the Roman Catholic Mission. Both appeals were dismissed with costs, and there was a right to set off the costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Inam (whether it comprised both Melwaram and Kudiwaram)
2. Classification of the Inam (whether it was a personal inam or for temple service)
3. Validity of Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926
4. Claim of Adverse Possession

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Inam:
The primary issue was whether the inam comprised both the Melwaram and Kudiwaram or only the Melwaram. The District Judge concluded that both warams were included, relying on certified copies of certain leases. However, these documents were inadmissible as they were only copies, and the originals were not produced. The High Court rejected these documents and concluded that only the Melwaram was included in the inam. The admissible evidence, including village accounts and inam statements, indicated that the inam comprised only the Melwaram. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conclusion, stating, "All admissible matter points to the conclusion that the melwaram alone was the subject of the grant."

2. Classification of the Inam:
The second issue was whether the inam was a personal inam or granted for temple service. The District Judge held that the inam was personal and not liable to resumption. However, the High Court found that the inam was granted for the service of the temple and was therefore resumable. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, noting that the inam was described as "Devadayam inam" and "stalethar inam porupou manyam," indicating it was for temple service. The Court stated, "This clearly shows that the inam was always considered as remuneration for archaka service of the temple and on its alienation it is liable to resumption under S. 44-B."

3. Validity of Section 44-B:
The third issue was the validity of Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. The District Judge found it unnecessary to express an opinion on this issue, while the High Court upheld the provision's validity. The Supreme Court examined the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1915, and found that the legislature had the authority to enact Section 44-B. The Court stated, "Section 44-B was thus fully within the competence of the Provincial legislature." The Court also rejected arguments that the section was void under the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution, stating, "We accordingly reject the contention that s. 44-B or the resumption under it were invalid."

4. Claim of Adverse Possession:
The final issue was the claim of adverse possession by the Roman Catholic Mission. The Supreme Court referred to previous rulings that there is no period of limitation for the Government to exercise its prerogative of imposing assessment on land liable to be assessed with public revenue. The Court found no merit in the claim of adverse possession, stating, "This point has no force."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's findings that the inam comprised only the Melwaram, was granted for temple service, and was liable to resumption under Section 44-B. The Court also upheld the validity of Section 44-B and rejected the claim of adverse possession. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and there was a right to set off the costs.

---