https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199567 A temple-related inam recorded as devadayam or poruppu manyam was treated as a grant of melwaram only, with no proof of kudiwaram rights. The land was held to be a service inam connected with archaka duties, not a merely personal grant, and was therefore liable to resumption on alienation. Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 was upheld as within legislative competence, and the plea of adverse possession failed because no limitation barred Government resumption in the circumstances found. en-us Fri, 14 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 18:44:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199567 A temple-related inam recorded as devadayam or poruppu manyam was treated as a grant of melwaram only, with no proof of kudiwaram rights. The land was held to be a service inam connected with archaka duties, not a merely personal grant, and was therefore liable to resumption on alienation. Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 was upheld as within legislative competence, and the plea of adverse possession failed because no limitation barred Government resumption in the circumstances found. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199567